Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Future land-use changes and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystem

services: A review
Eduardo Gomes ⁎, Miguel Inácio, Katažyna Bogdzevič, Marius Kalinauskas, Donalda Karnauskaitė, Paulo Pereira
Environmental Management Laboratory, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Most of the studies on future ecosystem

services assessment are not validated.
• There is a lack of studies assessing future
LULC impacts on cultural services.
• More research in this scientific domain
is needed in Africa and South America.
• Integrating future ecosystem services
analysis into the spatial planning poli-
cies is critical.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Terrestrial ecosystem services (ES) are vulnerable to land use and land cover changes (LULCC). These changes are
Received 19 February 2021 triggered by different drivers of change (e.g., economic, social, political, environmental - climate change). Under-
Received in revised form 16 March 2021 standing the potential future LULCC is an effective way to anticipate the impacts on ES supply. In recent years,
Accepted 19 March 2021
some researchers applied different spatial modelling methods to assess the potential LULCC future impacts on
Available online 24 March 2021
ES supply, but so far, no systematic review was carried out. This work aims to do a bibliographic review about
Editor: Fernando A.L. Pacheco future LULCC and their implications on ES supply (provisioning, regulating, and cultural services). After a rigorous
bibliographic review, we identified 957 papers. However, only 79 papers meet the criteria to be used in the re-
Keywords: view. The results showed that (i) the studies have been mainly focused on Asia (55.70%) and Europe (17,72%);
Future land-use scenarios (ii) the most common and extensively used models to project future LULCC were cellular automata (30.86%),
Terrestrial ecosystem services CLUE-S model (8.64%) and Land Change Modeler (8.64%); and (iii) the most used methods to assess future im-
Spatial decision-support pacts on ES were the InVEST model (24.04%), and equations used in previous works (12.5%). These studies
were mainly focused on measuring future impacts on provisioning (44.11%) and regulating services (43.59%).
Also, most of the works lack external validation. The diversity of studies evaluated allowed to recognise gaps
and outline insights into the current scientific research on this scientific domain, representing an essential con-
tribution to the current state of knowledge by supporting both practitioners and scientists.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eduardojonas@gmail.com (E. Gomes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146716
0048-9697/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al. Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716

2.1. Projecting future LULCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2. Measuring the influence of future LULCC on ES supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Geographical location and ES studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Future LUCC, ES assessment, validation and projected horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Implications on ES supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. Limitations and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.5. Implications to policymaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.6. Future directions and research recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Declaration of competing interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Background
Ecosystem Services (ES) are described as the goods that natural eco-
systems provide humans (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997). In 1995,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognised ES to support
the Ecosystem Approach by promoting the sustainable use of Earth's
natural resources (Enright and Boteler, 2020). In a first major effort,
Costanza et al. (1997) assessed ES based on 17 service functions.
However, it was through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA) (MEA, 2005), that the ES concept gained visibility and impor-
tance. The MEA assessed the different ES extensively and classified
them according to 4 categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural and
supporting ES. Since then, several other ES classifications, i.e. The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB); National Ecosystem
Classification Services Classification Systems (NECS), Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services Classification Systems (FEGS-CS) and Common
International Classification on Ecosystem Services (CICES) were devel-
oped. However, the usage of a specific classification system depends on
the analysis's objective (Pereira, 2020). Nevertheless, CICES (Haines-
Young and Potschin, 2013) was developed with the intent to be used as
a unified, standardised international classification.
The popularity of the ES concept is tied with its capacity to show
and raise awareness of the socio-economic benefits of a preserved
environment (Chaudhary et al., 2015). Therefore, ES has been exten-
sively studied as a way to promote critical ecological functions in
several socio-ecologic systems such as in urban areas (e.g., Zhang
et al., 2017), socio-economic impacts evaluation (e.g., Williams and
Schirmer, 2012), climate change (e.g., Monprapussorn, 2018; Tasser
et al., 2017), biodiversity (e.g., Rodríguez-Echeverry et al., 2018), water re-
sources (e.g., Liu et al., 2017a, 2017b), marine ecosystems (e.g. Inácio
et al., 2019), and highlands (e.g., Kindu et al., 2018).
Despite its importance as supporting pillars of socio-ecologic sys-
tems worldwide, ecosystems' natural capacity to provide ES has been
degraded over the last decades (IPBES, 2019). Land use and land cover
changes (LULCC) have been identified as one of the main drivers respon-
sible for the degradation of the ecosystems' capacity to supply services
in quantity and quality (Pereira, 2020). The MEA (2005) highlighted
that since the 1950s, more than 60% of ecosystems had been degraded,
and that past LULCCs have been the most important driving force in ter-
restrial ES change. More recently, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and ES (IPBES) revealed that around 75% of the
land use environment had been critically changed by human actions
(Opgenoorth and Faith, 2013). It is, therefore, imperative to halt further
degradation of ES caused by LULCC.
To tackle the pervasive effects of LULCC and their future effects on ES
provision requires predicting future changes. Models which can predict
future LULCCs can anticipate potential future impacts on ES and support
decision making processes. Studies connecting scenario-based future
LULCC and their effects on ES have been the subject of considerable
interest (e.g., Qin et al., 2019; Veerkamp et al., 2020). These studies
have been applied both locally and worldwide, and they have been
used to create plausible future territorial images of how a territory
may be established. This allows (i) to improve the adaptative capacity
by anticipating LULCC (Gomes et al., 2019a); (ii) to promote future sus-
tainability pathways (Popp et al., 2017); (iii) to anticipate human deci-
sions by combining quantitative and qualitative data, and engaging
stakeholders (Gomes et al., 2020; Reed et al., 2013); and (iv) to help
decision-makers to understand better possible landscape transforma-
tions and their impacts on ES (Montibeller et al., 2006). Several method-
ological frameworks (e.g., InVEST model) use the models' spatial
outputs to estimate their impact on ES provision (e.g., Araújo Costa
et al., 2019; Barbosa et al., 2020). The combination of both future
LULCC and ES is the key to understand future ES supply. There was an
increase in the number of published articles that have analysed these
methods together in recent years. Therefore, it is critical to understand
(i) where these methodological approaches have been applied?; (ii)
which ES type has been studied?; (iii) which methods have been
used?; (iv) what was the time horizon between the reference year
and the projected year?; and v) If the results were validated. Accord-
ingly, we presented a systematic literature review focused on answering
the above questions by contributing to (i) better understand the current
state of the art in this scientific domain; (ii) to improve some scientific
uncertainties; and (iii) point out scientific directions that papers should
accomplish in the future. The paper is organized as follows. The sec-
ond section provides a state of art about projecting future LUCC
and measuring the influence of future LULCC on ES supply. The
third section presents our material and methods. The fourth section
puts into practice the results and discussion. The fifth section pre-
sents the main conclusions.
2. State of the art
2.1. Projecting future LULCC
Complex spatial models have been widely used to project future
LULCC dynamics (Verburg et al., 2019). Several methods and techniques
have been applied to investigate the relationship between past LULCC
and driving forces to project future LULCC under different scenarios
(Gomes et al., 2020; Veerkamp et al., 2020). Usually, a set of past envi-
ronmental, political, socio-economical, technological, and cultural are
analysed (Bürgi et al., 2017; Popp et al., 2017; Terra et al., 2014). The
projection of future LULCC has been used to optimise land-use patterns
and to improve sustainable land use management (Hoque et al., 2020;
Valbuena et al., 2010). Over the last few decades, several methods
have been applied in solving complex trade-off issues. Among
those, the most widely cited in the scientific literature related to fu-
ture LULCCs projections have been (i) Cellular Automata (CA), (ii)
CLUE-S model, (iii) Multi-criteria decision analysis, (iv) Land change

2
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
modeler (LCM), (v) Future Land Use Simulation Model Software
(FLUS) model, and (vi) agent-based models. Table 1 describes each
of these models in detail.
These models can integrate the spatial complexity of LULCC contain-
ing non-linear, non-stationary systems, and multiscale effects (Gomes,
2020). To increase model reliability, rigorous validation of the simulation
Table 1
Most widely cited spatial complex models in studies related to future LULCCs projections.
Model
(i) Cellular Automata
(ii) CLUE-S model
(iii) Multi-criteria decision
analysis
(iv) Land change modeler (LCM)
(v) Future Land Use Simulation
Model Software (FLUS) model
(vi) Agent-based models
Description
It has been one of the most widely used models
in studying LULCCs dynamics (Boavida-Portugal
et al., 2016). They were first introduced by Ulam
and Von Neumann in the 1940s (Von Neumann,
1969). However, it was only with Waldo Tobler
that CA was applied in the spatial planning
process (Tobler, 1979). They have simple
preconditions, rules, and actions, expressed by a
matrix, where a state defines each cell. CA
coupled with Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) has been well established in the study of
LULCCs, identifying locations with high
suitability for land use transitions based on a
weighted overlay suitability factor. CA can
simulate spatial dynamics from a bottom-up
perspective, capable of establishing
interconnections between land use classes and
driving forces. This has become a
well-established method for modelling future
LULCCs according to different scenarios. One of
its main advantages is in representing the
driving forces of those land-use changes by
transition rules and expressing the spatial
externalities by neighbourhood rules
(e.g., Gomes et al., 2019b; Yang et al., 2012).
It is a dynamic model created by Wageningen
University. It allows to simulate land uses
competition and encompasses both
non-spatial and spatial data. Non-spatial data
is applied to estimate land-use parameters and
spatial data, including land use projection,
land use restrictions, land-use changes, and
spatial distribution suitability of each land-use
class (Verburg et al., 2002).
It implies a set of methodologies to support
decision-makers when faced with multiple and
sometimes conflicting goals. It describes score
functions used for converting all potential
‘what-if’ impacts into scores for each criterion
(Kaim et al., 2018). It has been widely used in
environmental decisions, particularly dealing
with potential land-use transformations (Hill
et al., 2005; Romano et al., 2015).
It is an integrated model in TerrSet software. It
includes multi-layer perceptron – artificial
neural network, Markov chain, CA, and Soft
and Hard prediction principles. It has been
widely used and has been good support for
decision-makers to anticipate future LULCC
uncertainties (Sharma et al., 2018).
It comprises two algorithms, namely an
artificial neural network to estimate suitability
probability maps according to different land
use classes and explanatory variables and a CA
to explore self-adaptation mechanisms and
competition principles (Zhang et al., 2020).
Agent-based models are valuable for exploring
complex dynamics. It comprises an
environment and agents interacting with each
other according to specific goals. Each agent is
designed to be pro-active, autonomous, and
capable of recognising their virtual
environment (Crooks, 2010). From the LULCCs
perspective, agent-based models simulate the
link between biophysical, socio-economic, and
human behavioural processes of LULCCs over
space and time (Rocha et al., 2017).
3
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
outcomes is needed and is one of the most important indicators for
assessing the quality of future projection of LULCC (Verburg et al.,
2002). To calibrate and validate simulations outcomes, many techniques
have been used, such as weighting matrices (Pickard and Meentemeyer,
2019), Receiver Operating Characteristic index (Ghani et al., 2015), and
Kappa index (van Vliet et al., 2011). The accuracy of the projected simu-
lation of future LULCCs is assessed by comparing each simulation with
real data. The outcomes validation should assess the capability to per-
fectly reproduce quantities and locations between the projected and
the reference map.
2.2. Measuring the influence of future LULCC on ES supply
An increasing interest in measuring the influence of future LULCC on
ES supply has been applied (e.g., Liu et al., 2017a, 2017b; Liu et al.,
2020a, 2020b). Selecting a suitable method or algorithm involves
recognising the specific goal that is addressed in each study. Among
those, the most widely used and accepted in the literature has been the
(i) InVEST, the (ii) Soil and Water Assessment Tool model (SWAT), the
(iii) Co$ting Nature, (iv) some coefficients proposed by Costanza et al.
(1997), Xie (2003) and Xie et al. (2008), and (v) participatory assessment
with stakeholders. Table 2 describes each of these models in detail.
3. Materials and methods
We systematically reviewed literature that analysed both future
LULCCs and its impacts on ES. We conducted a literature analysis
using the search engines Google scholar, Scopus covering the years be-
tween 2000 and 2020. The following keywords were used: “ecosystem”
AND “services” AND “future” AND “land” AND “use” AND “change” in ei-
ther the title, abstract and keywords. We only selected peer-reviewed/
indexed articles written in English. According to these criteria, 957 pa-
pers were identified. However, only 79 papers met all the defined
criteria (e.g., keywords, time range, peer-reviewed articles, English lan-
guage, and future land uses modelling impact on ES). This paper's
workflow is shown in Fig. 1, which identifies the structure and the
data extracted from the selected papers. Firstly, it includes the papers
that meet the criteria, and then the data collected from the selected pa-
pers, namely (i) the location of the empirical analysis, (ii) the methods
and techniques used in future LULCC projections and ES assessment,
(iii) if the results were validated, (iv) the identification of what type of
ES was analysed (provisioning, regulating, and cultural), and (v) the
projection horizon. Here, we examined each study's time horizon
by comparing the difference between the baseline-year and the
projected-year. The ES from the various works were aggregated ac-
cording to CICES 5.1. (https://cices.eu/resources/) classification at
the division level. The choice to group the ES at this level was be-
cause several works used did not use a specific classification, and
it was not easy to use other detailed classification (e.g., group or
class). Therefore, to avoid misleading ES aggregations, we used
the division level. To facilitate the interpretation, we have grouped
the projection horizon in four qualitative groups, namely in short-
term (analysing studies with a time horizon of up to 20 years);
medium-term (between 21 and 50 years); long-term (more than
50 years); and not defined (some studies presented spatially ex-
plicit scenarios, but they did not show a defined time horizon).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Geographical location and ES studied
Overall, 90% of the selected papers were published between 2015
and 2020, and the remaining 10% were published between 2009 and
2014 (Fig. 2).
The empirical analysis covers 5 continents, namely Asia with 44
studies (55.7%), Europe with 14 (17.72%), followed by Africa with 7
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
Table 2
Most cited models and techniques to assess ES supply.
Model Description
(i) InVEST model It estimates and weighs ES based on an
ecological production process to analyse
and predict ES and habitat provision
(Yang et al., 2019). It applies geospatial
and tabular data measuring ecological
dynamics. It has been used in the
quantitative measurement of landscape
features and aims to estimate the goods
and services from nature. Some of the
terrestrial ES measurements are habitat
quality (e.g., Sharma et al., 2018; Wu
et al., 2019), urban cooling (Larsen, 2015),
and crop production (Shaffer et al., 2019).
(ii) SWAT model It is a watershed-scale model created by
the United States Department of Agri-
culture Research Service and Texas A&M
University (Wang et al., 2019). It
comprises, among other drivers, climate,
soil temperature, hydrologic data, nutri-
ent cycling, and pesticide dynamics.
(iii) Co$ting Nature It evaluates natural capital, ES,
environmental conservation
prioritisation, and measures pressures
and biodiversity threats (Aziz and Van
Cappellen, 2019). It aids to explore
multiple ES and measuring its impacts,
particularly in anthropogenic activities
such as LULCCs (Oliveira et al., 2017).
(iv) Coefficients to estimate ES value for These coefficients have been one of the
different biomes proposed by most widely used in ES assessment. They
Costanza et al. (1997), and Xie are called the “benefit transfer”, and they
(2003), and (Xie et al., 2008) categorise ES into 16 types and 17
subtypes as their services functions. In
2003 (Xie, 2003) and later in 2008 (Xie
et al., 2008) adapted those coefficients
proposed by Costanza (1997a), and this
adaptation has been highly cited.
(v) Participatory assessment with It allows dealing with complex problems
stakeholders with a selected group of stakeholders
(Gomes et al., 2020). In the context of ES,
they allow to identify, assess and score ES
(Paudyal et al., 2015). Various techniques
have been used to facilitate potential
conflicts between different stakeholders.
One of the most widely used techniques
have been the Delphi (Rowe and Wright,
1999), the value of information/expected
value of information framework (Dakins,
1999), and the nominal group technique
(Sample, 1984). This technique is also
widely used for assessing ES in several
studies in the ES validation, in which,
through interviews, surveys, or
workshops conducted with stakeholders,
the outcomes achieved are calibrated and
validated (e.g., Rosenthal et al., 2015;
Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017).
(8.86%), America with 7 (8.86%) and Oceania with 3 (3.8%). Besides, 4
studies (5.31%) were carried out on a global scale (Fig. 3 and
Table S1).
Each selected paper analysed different impacts on ES. Most of the
works analysed were focused on provisioning (44.11%) and regulat-
ing (43.59%) ES, while 12.3% studied cultural ES. By continents, in
Asia, the majority of the studies follow the trend was also focused
on the future LULCC impacts on provisioning (43.48%) and regulating
(42.61%) ES analysis. Only 13.91% of the works studied cultural ES.
Europe was the second continent with the largest number of studies,
and there was a large number of works that assessed the future
LULCC impacts on regulating (45.71%), followed by provisioning
(34.29%), and cultural (20%) ES (Table 3 and Table 2 in Supplemen-
tary material 2).
4
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
4.2. Future LUCC, ES assessment, validation and projected horizon
The future LULCC projections supported by complex spatial models
allowed to understand the impacts on ES under different future condi-
tions. In this systematic review, we identified that the most widely used
models to project future LUCC were CA (30.86%), CLUE-S model (8.64%),
and Land Change Modeler (8.64%). Less than half of the studies assessed
(45.68%) were validated, using techniques such as Kappa coefficient
(e.g., Huang et al., 2019) and workshops with representative stakeholders
(e.g., Martínez-Sastre et al., 2017) (Table 3 in supplementary material).
Most of these studies projected their scenarios in a short-term horizon
(40.51%), followed by a medium-term (39.24%), long-term horizon
(16.46%), and 3.80% did not define a specific time horizon. Regarding
the methods and techniques that were used to analyse the ES impacts ac-
cording to the future LULCC projections, the InVEST model was the most
widely used (24.04%), followed by Costanza (1997b), Xie (2003) and
Xie et al. (2008) equations (12.50%). Only 14.81% of the ES assessment re-
sults were validated (Table 4 in supplementary material).
4.3. Implications on ES supply
Most of the studies that analysed the future impacts on provisioning
ES are concentrated in Asia (56.90%) and Europe (17.24%). The most
studied provisioning ES division is biomass (53.57%), followed by
water (42.86%), and genetic material from all biota (including seed,
spore or gamete production) (3.57%). The majority of the works were
focused on a single ES assessment. In Asia single, ES assessment repre-
sents 57.58%, while in Europe and America represents approximately
80%. In Africa, most studies (80%) analyse more than one service.
Among the papers studying the impacts of future LULCC on
provisioning ES, Byrd et al. (2015) revealed that water availability in
the California rangeland (North America) will decrease drastically in
the long-term horizon. Eigenbrod et al. (2011) showed that agricultural
production (biomass) will be reduced severely in Great Britain in a
short-term horizon (2031) under different forms of urbanisation scenar-
ios. Hoque et al. (2020) emphasised that future impacts on ES (arising
from LULCC) may cause serious damage to the biomass, water availabil-
ity, and the genetic material from all biota in Bangladesh (Fig. 4).
Most of the studies that evaluated the future LULCC impacts on reg-
ulating ES are concentrated in Asia (54.29%), Europe (20%), and America
(5.71%). The majority researched the regulating ES division of physical,
chemical, biological conditions (81.18%), followed by transformation of
biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems (18.82%). The larger num-
ber of the works focused on a single regulating ES. In Asia, it corresponds
to 73.68% of the total studies. In Europe covers 85.71%, in America ap-
proximately 80%, and in Africa to 71.43% of the works identified. In Oce-
ania, the studies analysed a single ES.
Landuyt et al. (2016) and Krkoška Lorencová et al. (2016) pointed
out the negative impacts of LUCC on the regulation of physical, chemical,
biological conditions, the transformation of biochemical or physical in-
puts to ecosystems (Fig. 5). This is especially evident in regions where
high levels of population and urbanisation growth are expected to
occur (e.g. Liu et al., 2018; Lyu et al., 2019).
Lastly, most of the studies that assessed the future LULCC impacts on
cultural ES were focused on Asia (61.54%), Europe (30.77%), and Africa
and Oceania (both with 3.85%). In America there are no studies on the
impact of future LULCC on cultural ES. The most investigated cultural
ES division is direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems
that depend on the presence in the environmental setting (83.87%),
followed by indirect, remote, often indoor interactions with living sys-
tems that do not require presence in the environmental setting
(16.13%). Most of the studies focus on a single cultural ES. In Asia, it rep-
resents 84.21%, and in Europe and Oceania, the studies considered only
one ES (100%).
Xia et al. (2018), Gonzalez-Redin et al. (2019), and Kain et al. (2016)
recognised that some cultural ES will be negatively affected by future
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
Fig. 1. The flowchart of the paper structure.
LULCC respectively in China, Australia, and Sweden, namely: (i) direct,
in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems, and (ii) indirect,
remote, often indoor interactions with living systems. Fig. 6 illustrates
the location, by continent, studies that evaluated the impacts of future
LULCC on cultural ES.
4.4. Limitations and uncertainties
This systematic review identified limitations and uncertainties such
as: (i) the uncertainty of the input data, due to the lack of data and low
spatial resolution data in some cases; (ii) the scale of analysis it limits
the type of ES that can be analysed (since analysing ES on a local scale
it is possible to obtain more reliable results than on larger scales); (iii)
the difficulty of choosing the better model for future LULCC projections
and ES assessment when specific spatial processes are analysed; (iv) the
fact of some of the models are black-boxes and difficult to explain;
(v) drawback of not including ES in legal frameworks; (vi) most results
have not been validated, which makes the results unreliable; (vii) the
majority studies assess the future impact on ES from a short-term per-
spective, which may be a limitation, as policy-action may take a long
Fig. 2. Indexed peer-reviewed papers in the scientific domain of future LULCC analysis and ES assessment.
5
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
time to respond and to translate it into land-use planning strategies;
and the (viii) multiple potential futures that often are presented in
each study, may create an ambiguity in the interpretation of results
mainly from the point of view of decision-makers.
4.5. Implications to policymaking
Almost all governments' decision-making process ignores the im-
pacts of global environmental change on the long-term conservation
and preservation of ES (Liu et al., 2015). To address this issue, actions
have to be taken as long as LULCC triggered by anthropogenic activities
or ecological phenomena, continues to modify the natural environment
(Viana and Rocha, 2019; Newbold et al., 2015). It is critical to effectively
implement spatial planning policies to reduce environmental impacts,
optimise land use allocation, and to identify when and how some
LULCC may occur. In this systematic review, we identified several arti-
cles measuring the uncertainties of future LULCC impacts on ES value
by formulating multiple spatial scenarios with the possibility of inte-
grating their results into the territorial management instruments. This
may allow creating new perceptions for cohesive spatial planning and
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
Fig. 3. Selected empirical analysis.
land use management that considers environmental changes (Opdam
et al., 2015) by increasing the knowledge of hypothetical impacts (neg-
ative or positive) on ES (Araújo Costa et al., 2019). One of these exam-
ples, identified in this systematic literature review, presented by
Martínez-Sastre et al. (2017) and Bryan et al. (2016), recommended ef-
fective ES frameworks for land use planning by recognising the poten-
tial impacts of different spatial policies on ES.
The linkage between future LULCC and the measurement of ES
impacts can guide decision-makers to create better decisions. In sci-
entific research and policymaking, this approach has been seen as a
potentially effective way to assess environmental values and support
a set of priorities in the decision-making process (Lennon and Scott,
2014).
Different global strategies have been implemented to protect ES.
Most mentioned are the (i) United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development goals (United Nations, 2015), (ii) the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets (CBD, 2010), (iii) the Bonn Challenge (Saint-Laurent et al.,
2020), (iv) the United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD Programme)
(FAO, 2020), (v) Paris Agreement (UN, 2015), and (vi) United Nations
decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030 (UN, 2021). These global
strategies aim to, directly or indirectly, preserve the value of ES by,
e.g., taking actions to combat climate change and desertification, restore
land degradation and biodiversity loss, and creating measures to pro-
mote forest restoration. These global strategies are precious as they
can support and give decision-makers guidelines to preserve multiple
ES types. Hence, in his work, we observed that these global strategies
had not been achieved in some of their projections. Among those:
(i) Chen et al. (2020) recognised that for 2030 in Chongqing city (China)
it is expected a loss of ES value due to urban expansion and resulting
mainly in the degradation of climate regulation services (−89 MM USD),
water flow regulation (−21%), and erosion prevention (−12%); (ii)
6
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
Niquisse et al. (2017) projected that for 2025 in Mozambique, as a result
of future LULCC, it is expected that water quality regulating ser-
vices (nitrogen retention) will decrease (−30.9%) and; (iii)
Krkoška Lorencová et al. (2016) revealed that for 2050 in the
Czech republic it is expected that carbon sequestration will de-
crease by 16%. Therefore, linking spatial planning strategies and
spatial modelling (by modelling future LULCC and ES assessment)
has helped decision-makers to visualise spatial-temporal data by
capturing how LULCC can affect ES supply (Barbosa et al., 2020;
Sauter et al., 2019). Thus it can help them: (i) to incorporate
more efficiently scientific knowledge into spatial planning pro-
cesses (Te Brömmelstroet and Schrijnen, 2010), (ii) to achieve a
trade-off describing the impacts on ES according to different future
LULCC scenarios, and (iii) to provide crucial scientific support for
ecosystem and nature protection.
4.6. Future directions and research recommendations
Analysis of future LULCC and measuring its impacts on ES is key to
sustainable land use management. Comprehensively, this requires a
complex understanding of multifunctionality between environmental
and human systems. The impacts of LULCC on ES are triggered by several
drivers (Carpenter et al., 2009), changing the ecosystems' capacity to pro-
vide ES (Li et al., 2019). Finding a balance between environment protec-
tion and economic development is the key role of delivery ES in quality
and quantity. Therefore, measuring the impacts of future LULCC projec-
tions on ES can effectively demonstrate how human wellbeing obtained
from nature can directly promote the paradigm of future environmental
sustainability. Some of the selected papers revealed that this coupled
methodological approach can successfully support political decisions
(e.g., Bryan et al., 2016; Mouchet et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019). However,
many issues should be improved by reducing some criticism from both
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al. Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716

Table 3 the scientific community and decision-makers. Based on the results ob-
Number of studies examining future LULCC impacts on provisioning, regulating, and cul- tained from this systematic review, we pointed out some research rec-
tural services.
ommendations that can help to reduce some of these weaknesses in
Continent Country Case studies Provisioning Regulating Cultural future scientific research, namely (i) improve validation results. This is
Global N/A 4 3 3 0 a critical issue to be addressed by new scientific research once it improves
Africa Ethiopia 3 8 5 1 the reliability of the outcomes; (ii) more awareness in the assessment of
Ghana 1 2 1 0 the impacts of future LULCCs on cultural services. There is a lack of stud-
Mozambique 1 0 1 0
ies analysing future LULCCs impacts on cultural ES; and (iii) more
Kenya 1 0 1 0
South Africa 1 1 1 0 studies in this scientific domain are needed, particularly in Africa
Tanzania 1 0 1 0 and in the Southern part of America, as only 11% of the studies are lo-
Asia Bangladesh 2 5 3 2 cated in these continents. Here it is expected, in a short-medium
China 30 31 34 13 time horizon, negative impacts on water provisioning (Münch
Iran 1 1 0 0
Japan 3 5 3 0
et al., 2019; Resende et al., 2019), and regulation of physical, chemi-
Pakistan 2 0 2 0 cal, biological conditions and transformation of biochemical or phys-
Philipines 2 3 3 1 ical inputs to ecosystems (Swetnam et al., 2011; Woldeyohannes
South-East Asia 1 0 1 0 et al., 2020). This is particularly relevant since, in recent decades, a
South Korea 1 1 1 0
sharp decrease in natural and semi-natural areas occurred in these
Thailand 2 2 1 0
Vietnam 1 2 1 0 continents (e.g., deforestation for intensive agriculture or high levels
Oceania Australia 3 4 3 1 of urbanisation) (Liu et al., 2020a, 2020b; Song et al., 2018). Besides,
Europe Europe (continent) 2 1 2 1 the United Nations projected high levels of population growth (be-
tween 2020 and 2050) in some countries of these continents, such
Austria 1 1 1 1
as in Niger (+171%) and Angola (+136%) in Africa, and Bolivia
Belgium 1 1 2 0
Czech Republic 2 0 2 0 (+36%), and Venezuela (+30%) in South America (United Nations,
Germany 1 1 1 1 2019). So, it is critical to conduct studies in these regions since in these
Great Britain 1 0 1 0 “low income” countries (as defined by the World Bank) (Fantom and
Italy 1 2 1 1
Serajuddin, 2016), more vulnerable people live, and where high rates of
Scotland 1 2 1 1
Spain 1 1 1 1
natural and semi-natural areas have been lost in recent decades. There-
Sweden 2 2 3 1 fore, addressing these issues may improve our understanding of future
United Kingdom 1 1 1 0 LULLC impacts on different ES types, thus helping to reduce the main con-
America USA 6 6 5 0 cerns regarding its applicability in the decision-making process by creat-
Brazil 1 1 1 0
ing better comprehensible tools.

Fig. 4. Studies analysing future land use changes and its impacts on provisioning services.

7
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al. Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716

Fig. 5. Studies analysing future land use changes and its impacts on regulating services.

Fig. 6. Studies analysing future land use changes and its impacts on cultural services.

8
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
5. Conclusion
This paper did a scientific literature review, describing a comprehen-
sive and integrated analysis in the scientific domain of future LULCC
projections and ESs assessment. Our analysis revealed that the body of
research on this scientific domain had increased exponentially over
the past five years. Most studies are located in Asia and Europe
(72,84%), and they have mainly analysed provisioning and regulating
ES. Most of these studies used CA, CLUE, and LCM to project future
LULCC, and the InVEST model and equations from Costanza (1997a)
(and the adaptation from Xie, 2003 and Xie et al., 2008) to assess the
ES value according to this future LULCC. Besides, one of the weaknesses
in these studies is the lack of validation of the results. This systematic re-
view may improve future scientific research to address better policy and
planning measures, and recognise better pathways to a more sustain-
able future, benefiting both ecosystems and humans.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
“Lithuanian National Ecosystem Services Assessment and Mapping
(LINESAM)” No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0104 is funded by the European
Social Fund according to the activity “Improvement of researchers' quali-
fication by implementing world-class R&D projects” of Measure No.
09.3.3-LMT-K-712.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146716.
References
Araújo Costa, R.C., Pereira, G.T., Tarlé Pissarra, T.C., Silva Siqueira, D., Sanches Fernandes,
L.F., Vasconcelos, V., Fernandes, L.A., Pacheco, F.A.L., 2019. Land capability of
multiple-landform watersheds with environmental land use conflicts. Land Use Pol-
icy 81, 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.041.
Aziz, T., Van Cappellen, P., 2019. Comparative valuation of potential and realised ecosys-
tem services in Southern Ontario, Canada. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 105–112. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.014.
Barbosa, M., Carneiro, L., Franco de Carvalho da Silva Pereira, M., Rodriguez, C., Chagas, T.,
Moya, W., Bergamini, L., Mancini, M., Paes, N., Perez, L., 2020. Future Scenarios of
Land-use-cover Effects on Pollination Supply and Demand in São Paulo State, Brazil.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0906.
Boavida-Portugal, I., Rocha, J., Ferreira, C.C., 2016. Exploring the impacts of future tourism
development on land use/cover changes. Appl. Geogr. 77, 82–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.10.009.
Bryan, B.A., Nolan, M., McKellar, L., Connor, J.D., Newth, D., Harwood, T., King, D., Navarro,
J., Cai, Y., Gao, L., Grundy, M., Graham, P., Ernst, A., Dunstall, S., Stock, F., Brinsmead, T.,
Harman, I., Grigg, N.J., Battaglia, M., Keating, B., Wonhas, A., Hatfield-Dodds, S., 2016.
Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy
scenarios: trajectories for Australia to 2050. Glob. Environ. Chang. 38, 130–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.002.
Bürgi, M., Bieling, C., von Hackwitz, K., Kizos, T., Lieskovský, J., Martín, M.G., McCarthy, S.,
Müller, M., Palang, H., Plieninger, T., Printsmann, A., 2017. Processes and driving
forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 2097–2112.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0513-z.
Byrd, K.B., Flint, L.E., Alvarez, P., Casey, C.F., Sleeter, B.M., Soulard, C.E., Flint, A.L., Sohl, T.L.,
2015. Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland eco-
system services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply. Landsc. Ecol. 30,
729–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0159-7.
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T.,
Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V., Sarukhan,
J., Scholes, R.J., Whyte, A., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond
the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.0808772106 (1305 LP – 1312).
CBD, 2010. Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations.
Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D., Chettri, N., 2015. The evolution of ecosystem
services: a time series and discourse-centered analysis. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54, 25–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.025.
9
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
Chen, S., Feng, Y., Tong, X., Liu, S., Xie, H., Gao, C., Lei, Z., 2020. Modeling ESV losses caused
by urban expansion using cellular automata and geographically weighted regression.
Sci. Total Environ. 712, 136509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136509.
Costanza, R., Arge, Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s eco-
system services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8009(98)00020-2.
Crooks, A.T., 2010. Constructing and implementing an agent-based model of residential
segregation through vector GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 24, 661–675. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13658810903569572.
Daily, G., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, USA.
Dakins, M.E., 1999. The value of the value of information. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. An Int. J.
5, 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039991289437.
Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V.A., Davies, H.N., Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P.R., Gaston, K.J., 2011.
The impact of projected increases in urbanisation on ecosystem services. Proc. R.
Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3201–3208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2754.
Enright, S.R., Boteler, B., O’Higgins, T.G., 2020. In: Lago, M., DeWitt, T.H. (Eds.), The Ecosys-
tem Approach in International Marine Environmental Law and Governance BT -
Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,
Tools and Applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 333–352 https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_17.
Fantom, N., Serajuddin, U., 2016. The World Bank’s Classification of Countries by Income
(No. WPS7528). Washington, DC.
FAO, 2020. UN-REDD Programme [WWW Document]. UN-REDD Program.
Ghani, N.L.A., Abidin, S.Z.Z., Khalid, N.E.A., 2015. In: Berry, M.W., Mohamed, A., Yap, B.W.
(Eds.), Accuracy Assessment of Urban Growth Pattern Classification Methods Using
Confusion Matrix and ROC Analysis BT - Soft Computing in Data Science. Springer
Singapore, Singapore, pp. 255–264.
Gomes, E., 2020. Sustainable population growth in low-density areas in a new technolog-
ical era: prospective thinking on how to support planning policies using complex
spatial models. Land 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070221.
Gomes, E., Abrantes, P., Banos, A., Rocha, J., Buxton, M., 2019a. Farming under urban pres-
sure: Farmers’ land use and land cover change intentions. Appl. Geogr. 102, 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.12.009.
Gomes, E., Abrantes, P., Banos, A., Rocha, J., 2019b. Modelling future land use scenarios
based on farmers’ intentions and a cellular automata approach. Land use policy, 85
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.027.
Gomes, E., Banos, A., Abrantes, P., Rocha, J., Schläpfer, M., 2020. Future land use changes in
a peri-urban context: local stakeholder views. Sci. Total Environ. 137381. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137381.
Gonzalez-Redin, J., Gordon, I.J., Hill, R., Polhill, J.G., Dawson, T.P., 2019. Exploring sustainable
land use in forested tropical social-ecological systems: a case-study in the wet tropics.
J. Environ. Manag. 231, 940–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.079.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E.A., van Strien, M.J., Weibel, B., 2017. Integrating eco-
system services into spatial planning—a spatial decision support tool. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 165, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012., EEA Frame-
work Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
Hill, M.J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S.M., Lees, B.G., Sharma, S., 2005. Multi-criteria decision anal-
ysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of
quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 20,
955–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.04.014.
Hoque, M.Z., Cui, S., Islam, I., Xu, L., Tang, J., 2020. Future impact of land use/land cover
changes on ecosystem services in the Lower Meghna River Estuary. Bangladesh. Sus-
tain. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052112.
Huang, Q., Zhao, X., He, C., Yin, D., Meng, S., 2019. Impacts of urban expansion on wetland
ecosystem services in the context of hosting the Winter Olympics: a scenario simula-
tion in the Guanting Reservoir Basin, China. Reg. Environ. Chang. 19, 2365–2379.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01552-1.
Inácio, M., Schernewski, G., Pliatsika, D.A., Benz, J., Friedland, R., 2019. Assessing changes
in ecosystem services provision in coastal waters. Sustain. 11, 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11092632.
IPBES, 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodi-
versity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Kaim, A., Cord, A.F., Volk, M., 2018. A review of multi-criteria optimisation techniques for
agricultural land use allocation. Environ. Model. Softw. 105, 79–93. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.031.
Kain, J.-H., Larondelle, N., Haase, D., Kaczorowska, A., 2016. Exploring local consequences
of two land-use alternatives for the supply of urban ecosystem services in Stockholm
year 2050. Ecol. Indic. 70, 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.062.
Kim, I., Arnhold, S., Ahn, S., Le, Q.B., Kim, S.J., Park, S.J., Koellner, T., 2019. Land use change
and ecosystem services in mountainous watersheds: predicting the consequences of
environmental policies with cellular automata and hydrological modeling. Environ.
Model. Softw. 122, 103982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.018.
Kindu, M., Schneider, T., Döllerer, M., Teketay, D., Knoke, T., 2018. Scenario modelling of land
use/land cover changes in Munessa-Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands.
Sci. Total Environ. 622–623, 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.338.
Krkoška Lorencová, E., Harmáčková, Z.V., Landová, L., Pártl, A., Vačkář, D., 2016. Assessing
impact of land use and climate change on regulating ecosystem services in the Czech
Republic. Ecosyst. Heal. Sustain. 2, e01210. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1210.
Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Engelen, G., Uljee, I., Van der Meulen, M., Goethals, P.L.M., 2016.
The importance of uncertainties in scenario analyses – a study on future ecosystem
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
service delivery in Flanders. Sci. Total Environ. 553, 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2016.02.098.
Larsen, L., 2015. Urban climate and adaptation strategies. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13,
486–492. https://doi.org/10.1890/150103.
Lennon, M., Scott, M., 2014. Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning:
reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green infrastructure approach.
Town Plan. Rev. 85, 563–587.
Li, Z., Sun, Z., Tian, Y., Zhong, J., Yang, W., 2019. Impact of land use/cover change on Yang-
tze River Delta urban agglomeration ecosystem services value: temporal-spatial pat-
terns and cold/hot spots ecosystem services value change brought by urbanization.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010123.
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S.J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K.C., Gleick,
P., Kremen, C., Li, S., 2015. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science (80-. )
347, 1258832. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832.
Liu, Jingya, Li, J., Qin, K., Zhou, Z., Yang, X., Li, T., 2017a. Changes in land-uses and ecosys-
tem services under multi-scenarios simulation. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 522–526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.005.
Liu, Jianwei, Zhang, C., Kou, L., Zhou, Q., 2017b. Effects of climate and land use changes on
water resources in the Taoer River. Adv. Meteorol. 2017, 1031854. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2017/1031854.
Liu, Y., Bi, J., Lv, J., 2018. Future impacts of climate change and land use on multiple eco-
system Services in a Rapidly Urbanising Agricultural Basin. China. Sustain. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su10124575.
Liu, H., Gong, P., Wang, J., Clinton, N., Bai, Y., Liang, S., 2020a. Annual dynamics of global
land cover and its long-term changes from 1982 to 2015. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12,
1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1217-2020.
Liu, Hai, Zheng, L., Wu, J., Liao, Y., 2020b. Past and future ecosystem service trade-offs in
Poyang Lake Basin under different land use policy scenarios. Arab. J. Geosci. 13, 46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-5004-x.
Lyu, R., Clarke, K.C., Zhang, J., Jia, X., Feng, J., Li, J., 2019. The impact of urbanisation and cli-
mate change on ecosystem services: a case study of the city belt along the Yellow
River in Ningxia, China. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 77, 101351. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101351.
Martínez-Sastre, R., Ravera, F., González, J.A., López Santiago, C., Bidegain, I., Munda, G.,
2017. Mediterranean landscapes under change: combining social multicriteria evalu-
ation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Policy
67, 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.001.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios: Findings of the Scenarios Work-
ing Group, in: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Monprapussorn, S., 2018. Impact of climate and land use change on ecosystem services: a
case study of Samutsakorn province, Thailand. Ecol. Inform. 47, 45–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.08.007.
Montibeller, G., Gummer, H., Tumidei, D., 2006. Combining scenario planning and multi-
criteria decision analysis in practice. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 14, 5–20. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mcda.403.
Mouchet, M.A., Rega, C., Lasseur, R., Georges, D., Paracchini, M.-L., Renaud, J., Stürck, J.,
Schulp, C.J.E., Verburg, P.H., Verkerk, P.J., Lavorel, S., 2017. Ecosystem service supply
by European landscapes under alternative land-use and environmental policies. Int.
J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13, 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21513732.2017.1381167.
Münch, Z., Gibson, L., Palmer, A., 2019. Monitoring effects of land cover change on bio-
physical drivers in rangelands using albedo. L. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020033.
Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Hill, S.L.L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R.A., Börger, L., Bennett,
D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S.,
Edgar, M.J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M.L.K., Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D.J.,
Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp, V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Correia, D.L.P., Martin, C.D.,
Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y., Phillips, H.R.P., Purves, D.W., Robinson, A., Simpson,
J., Tuck, S.L., Weiher, E., White, H.J., Ewers, R.M., Mace, G.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W.,
Purvis, A., 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature
520, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324.
Niquisse, S., Cabral, P., Rodrigues, Â., Augusto, G., 2017. Ecosystem services and biodiversity
trends in Mozambique as a consequence of land cover change. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci.
Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13, 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1349836.
Oliveira, U., Soares-Filho, B.S., Paglia, A.P., Brescovit, A.D., de Carvalho, C.J.B., Silva, D.P.,
Rezende, D.T., Leite, F.S.F., Batista, J.A.N., Barbosa, J.P.P.P., Stehmann, J.R., Ascher, J.S.,
de Vasconcelos, M.F., De Marco, P., Löwenberg-Neto, P., Ferro, V.G., Santos, A.J.,
2017. Biodiversity conservation gaps in the Brazilian protected areas. Sci. Rep. 7,
9141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08707-2.
Opdam, P., Coninx, I., Dewulf, A., Steingröver, E., Vos, C., van der Wal, M., 2015. Framing
ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning?
Land Use Policy 46, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.008.
Opgenoorth, L., Faith, D., 2013. The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodi-
versity and ecosystem services (IPBES), up and walking. Front. Biogeogr. 5. https://
doi.org/10.21425/F5FBG20746.
Paudyal, K., Baral, H., Burkhard, B., Bhandari, S.P., Keenan, R.J., 2015. Participatory assess-
ment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: case study of
community-managed forests in Central Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 81–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007.
Pereira, P., 2020. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Sci. Total Environ. 702,
135008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135008.
Pickard, B.R., Meentemeyer, R.K., 2019. Validating land change models based on configu-
ration disagreement. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 77, 101366. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101366.
Popp, A., Calvin, K., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Stehfest, E., Bodirsky, B.L.,
Dietrich, J.P., Doelmann, J.C., Gusti, M., Hasegawa, T., Kyle, P., Obersteiner, M.,
Tabeau, A., Takahashi, K., Valin, H., Waldhoff, S., Weindl, I., Wise, M., Kriegler, E.,
10
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
Lotze-Campen, H., Fricko, O., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D.P., 2017. Land-use futures in
the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang. 42, 331–345. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
Qin, K., Liu, J., Yan, L., Huang, H., 2019. Integrating ecosystem services flows into water se-
curity simulations in water scarce areas: present and future. Sci. Total Environ. 670,
1037–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.263.
Reed, M.S., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., Broad, K., Burt, T.P., Fazey, I.R., Fraser, E.D.G., Hubacek, K.,
Nainggolan, D., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., Ravera, F., 2013. Participatory scenario de-
velopment for environmental management: a methodological framework illustrated
with experience from the UK uplands. J. Environ. Manag. 128, 345–362. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016.
Resende, F.M., Cimon-Morin, J., Poulin, M., Meyer, L., Loyola, R., 2019. Consequences of
delaying actions for safeguarding ecosystem services in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biol.
Conserv. 234, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.009.
Rocha, J., Boavida-Portugal, I., Gomes, E., 2017. Introductory chapter. In: Jorge Rocha, Ph.D.
(Ed.), Multiagent Systems. InTech https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70241.
Rodríguez-Echeverry, J., Echeverría, C., Oyarzún, C., Morales, L., 2018. Impact of land-use
change on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Chilean temperate forests.
Landsc. Ecol. 33, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0612-5.
Romano, G., Dal Sasso, P., Trisorio Liuzzi, G., Gentile, F., 2015. Multi-criteria decision anal-
ysis for land suitability mapping in a rural area of southern Italy. Land Use Policy 48,
131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.013.
Rosenthal, A., Verutes, G., McKenzie, E., Arkema, K.K., Bhagabati, N., Bremer, L.L., Olwero,
N., Vogl, A.L., 2015. Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant
assessments of ecosystem services. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 11,
190–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.966149.
Rowe, G., Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis.
Int. J. Forecast. 15, 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7.
Saint-Laurent, C., Hingorani, S., Vidal, A., Begeladze, S., Flasbarth, J., Jagger, B., 2020. The
Bonn Challenge [WWW Document] (Restore our Futur. - Bonn Chall).
Sample, J.A., 1984. Nominal group technique: an alternative to brainstorming. J. Ext. 22.
Sauter, I., Kienast, F., Bolliger, J., Winter, B., Pazúr, R., 2019. Changes in demand and supply
of ecosystem services under scenarios of future land use in Vorarlberg, Austria. J. Mt.
Sci. 16, 2793–2809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-5124-x.
Shaffer, J.A., Roth, C.L., Mushet, D.M., 2019. Modeling effects of crop production, energy
development and conservation-grassland loss on avian habitat. PLoS One 14,
e0198382.
Sharma, R., Nehren, U., Rahman, S.A., Meyer, M., Rimal, B., Aria Seta, G., Baral, H., 2018.
Modeling land use and land cover changes and their effects on biodiversity in Central
Kalimantan, Indonesia. L. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020057.
Song, X.-P., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E.F.,
Townshend, J.R., 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560,
639–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Mwakalila, S.,
Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Marshall, A.R., Lewis, S.L., 2011. Mapping socio-economic sce-
narios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling.
J. Environ. Manag. 92, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.007.
Tasser, E., Leitinger, G., Tappeiner, U., 2017. Climate change versus land-use change—what
affects the mountain landscapes more? Land Use Policy 60, 60–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.019.
Te Brömmelstroet, M., Schrijnen, P.M., 2010. From planning support systems to mediated
planning support: a structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Envi-
ron. Plan. B Plan. Des. 37, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35019.
Terra, T.N., dos Santos, R.F., Costa, D.C., 2014. Land use changes in protected areas and
their future: the legal effectiveness of landscape protection. Land Use Policy 38,
378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.003.
Tobler, W.R., 1979. Lattice tuning. Geogr. Anal. 11, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-
4632.1979.tb00671.x.
UN, 2015. The Paris Agreement [WWW Document]. Paris Agreem.
UN, 2021. United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 [WWW Docu-
ment]. Prev. Halting Reversing Degrad. Ecosyst. Worldw. URL Preventing, Halting
and Reversing the Degradation of Ecosystems Worldwide.%0A%0A.
United Nations, 2015. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals [WWW Document]. 17 Goals.
United Nations, 2019. World Population Prospects 2019 [WWW Document]. Dep. Econ.
Soc. Aff. Popul. Dyn (URL). https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Probabilistic/
Population/.
Valbuena, D., Verburg, P.H., Veldkamp, A., Bregt, A.K., Ligtenberg, A., 2010. Effects of farmers’
decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: an agent-based approach.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.001.
van Vliet, J., Bregt, A.K., Hagen-Zanker, A., 2011. Revisiting kappa to account for change in
the accuracy assessment of land-use change models. Ecol. Model. 222, 1367–1375.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.01.017.
Veerkamp, C.J., Dunford, R.W., Harrison, P.A., Mandryk, M., Priess, J.A., Schipper, A.M.,
Stehfest, E., Alkemade, R., 2020. Future projections of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-
vices in Europe with two integrated assessment models. Reg. Environ. Chang. 20, 103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01685-8.
Verburg, P.H., Soepboer, W., Veldkamp, A., Limpiada, R., Espaldon, V., Mastura, S.S.A.,
2002. Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ.
Manag. 30, 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2630-x.
Verburg, P.H., Alexander, P., Evans, T., Magliocca, N.R., Malek, Z., Rounsevell, M.D.A., van Vliet,
J., 2019. Beyond land cover change: towards a new generation of land use models. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.002.
Viana, C.M., Rocha, J., 2019. Long-term satellite image time-series for land use/land cover
change detection using refined open source data in a rural region. Remote Sens. 11
(9), 1104. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091104.
E. Gomes, M. Inácio, K. Bogdzevič et al.
Von Neumann, J., 1969. Theory of self-reproducing automata. Inf. Storage Retr. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0020-0271(69)90026-6.
Wang, Y., Jiang, R., Xie, J., Zhao, Y., Yan, D., Yang, S., 2019. Soil and water assessment tool
(SWAT) model: a systemic review. J. Coast. Res. 93, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.2112/
SI93-004.1.
Williams, K.J.H., Schirmer, J., 2012. Understanding the relationship between social change
and its impacts: the experience of rural land use change in South-Eastern Australia.
J. Rural. Stud. 28, 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.05.002.
Woldeyohannes, A., Cotter, M., Biru, W.D., Kelboro, G., 2020. Assessing changes in ecosys-
tem service values over 1985–2050 in response to land use and land cover dynamics
in Abaya-Chamo Basin. Southern Ethiopia. L. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020037.
Wu, Y., Tao, Y., Yang, G., Ou, W., Pueppke, S., Sun, X., Chen, G., Tao, Q., 2019. Impact of land
use change on multiple ecosystem services in the rapidly urbanising Kunshan City of
China: past trajectories and future projections. Land Use Policy 85, 419–427. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.022.
Xia, T., Wu, W., Zhou, Q., Tan, W., Verburg, P.H., Yang, P., Ye, L., 2018. Modeling the spatio-
temporal changes in land uses and its impacts on ecosystem services in Northeast
11
Science of the Total Environment 781 (2021) 146716
China over 2000–2050. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1611–1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-
018-1532-7.
Xie, G., 2003. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. J. Nat. Resour. 18 (2),
189–196.
Xie, G.D., Zhen, L., Lu, C.X., 2008. Supply, consumption and valuation of ecosystem services
in China. Resour. Sci. 30, 93–99.
Yang, X., Zheng, X.-Q., Lv, L.-N., 2012. A spatiotemporal model of land use change based on
ant colony optimisation, Markov chain and cellular automata. Ecol. Model. 233,
11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.03.011.
Yang, D., Liu, W., Tang, L., Chen, L., Li, X., Xu, X., 2019. Estimation of water provision service
for monsoon catchments of South China: applicability of the InVEST model. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 182, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.011.
Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Wei, X., 2017. Forest Fragmentation and driving forces in Yingkou,
Northeastern China. Sustainability 9, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030374.
Zhang, D., Wang, X., Qu, L., Li, S., Lin, Y., Yao, R., Zhou, X., Li, J., 2020. Land use/cover pre-
dictions incorporating ecological security for the Yangtze River Delta region, China.
Ecol. Indic. 119, 106841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106841.