Systematic review maps links between ecosystem condition indicators and services

A systematic review of 128 peer-reviewed publications published from 2018 to 2022 found that ecosystem condition indicators are incorporated into ecosystem service assessments in uneven ways, with the strongest implementation in cropland, grassland, woodland and forest systems. The review was conducted within the SELINA Horizon Europe project and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol.

The researchers searched a SELINA internal database derived from Scopus and Web of Science, containing 108,064 entries published from 2018 to 2022. The search initially returned 3,430 studies. After duplicates were removed, the team screened 2,720 English-language scientific publications, using titles, abstracts and author keywords in the first phase and full texts in the second. Studies were eligible when they quantitatively or qualitatively connected ecosystem condition, or related concepts, with ecosystem services or Nature’s Contributions to People. Twenty-three reviewers assessed the literature, and 128 publications were ultimately included.

Quality-control procedures included reviewer training, pilot screening, manual expert checks and two Fleiss’ kappa assessments. The coefficients of 0.706 and 0.856 indicated substantial to strong agreement on the assessed publications. Reviewers extracted information on indicator types, units, reference levels, spatial scale, ecosystem type and data sources, as well as the methods used to connect condition and service indicators. Condition indicators were reclassified using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting–Ecosystem Accounting Ecosystem Condition Typology, with additional classes created for indicators outside the main typology.

Across the included publications, the team identified 929 ecosystem condition indicators with direct or implicit links to ecosystem services and 707 ecosystem service indicators. Chemical state characteristics were the most numerous category within the main condition typology, including measures of carbon, nutrients, heavy metals and pH, but they did not constitute a majority of all condition indicators. Functional state indicators, including measures associated with leaf traits, were less frequently represented. Croplands received the largest number of condition indicators, followed by woodland and forests and assessments spanning multiple ecosystem types, while marine and coastal ecosystems were comparatively underrepresented.

Field data were the main input for condition assessments, followed by remote sensing, other processed spatial data and statistical data. Almost one third of the condition indicators were not spatially explicit, and reference conditions or levels were applied in only 20 publications, covering 90 indicators. Of the 929 linked condition indicators, 688 were assigned to the main Ecosystem Condition Typology and 207 to additional classes. Thirty-four represented pressures such as pollution, contamination and land use, while another 34 described stable environmental characteristics such as topography and climate. The review also recorded indicators tied to ecosystem extent or ecosystem services.

The authors caution that extent and service-based measures do not capture underlying ecological functions or resilience, while stable characteristics are not sensitive to change. These uses can blur the distinction among condition, pressure and service roles. Two approaches dominated the ways condition and services were connected: quantitative comparison and direct integration. In 341 cases, condition indicators were quantitatively compared with service indicators, including through statistical analysis, and 73 comparisons were qualitative. In 256 cases, condition indicators were integrated directly into service assessments, while 90 cases combined the two sets of results for a third purpose, such as conservation planning, restoration assessment or life-cycle impact assessment.

Condition indicators were linked most often to Regulation and Maintenance services, with 291 linkages, followed by multiple service classes, with 222, Provisioning services, with 158, and Cultural services, with 72. Among relationships that were explicitly compared, positive associations were more common than negative or absent relationships. The review recorded 124 positive relationships, 119 mixed relationships, 93 that were unclear or not specified, 40 negative relationships and 38 with no recognizable connection. Structural and functional condition indicators showed predominantly positive relationships with services, whereas physical and chemical indicators more often had mixed, unclear or contrasting relationships.

Landscape indicators displayed varied outcomes because measures can capture opposing spatial attributes, such as fragmentation versus cohesion or patch size versus density. Positive relationships predominated in woodland and forest, wetland, coastal and marine assessments. Cropland indicators were more often integrated directly into service assessments and linked to Provisioning services, while indicators for wetlands, rivers and lakes were more frequently associated with Cultural services. Of 744 condition indicators with a direct link to services, 256 were integrated into service assessments. These integrations relied heavily on chemical and physical condition measures and index calculations; no components of composite indicators were integrated directly in the reviewed sample.

The findings describe how researchers implemented condition–service links rather than establishing which links are most scientifically robust or socially relevant. The review was limited to English-language peer-reviewed articles published during 2018–2022, excluding grey literature and potentially omitting work using different terminology. Screening decisions involved subjective judgement, and publication quality and reporting varied. The review period also largely preceded or only partially overlapped with the 2025 release of the SEEA EA framework. Overall, the synthesis identifies gaps in ecosystem coverage, indicator diversity and spatial resolution and supports clearer separation of condition, pressure and service indicators as integrated ecosystem assessments advance.

Subject of Research: Systematic review of ecosystem condition indicators linked to ecosystem service assessments

Article Title: Towards Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: A literature review on linking ecosystem condition indicators to ecosystem services

Article References: Seguin, J., Nicholson Thomas, I., Rendón, P., Cortinovis, C., Arany, I., Czúcz, B., Duchková, H., Geneletti, D., Grondard, N., Guisado Goñi, V., Inácio, M., Kato-Huerta, J., Kokkoris, I., Le Clec'h, S., Lupa, P., Mansoldo, M., Pereira, P., Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M., … Lange, S. (2026). Towards Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: A literature review on linking ecosystem condition indicators to ecosystem services. One Ecosystem, 11, Article e184299. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.11.e184299

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.11.e184299

Keywords: ecosystem condition, ecosystem services, systematic review, ecosystem accounting, condition indicators, service assessment, environmental monitoring, ecological assessment, land use, SEEA EA, Towards, Integrated