www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Ecosystem services provided by a

complex coastal region: challenges
of classification and mapping
received: 30 November 2015 Lisa P. Sousa1, Ana I. Sousa2, Fátima L. Alves1 & Ana I. Lillebø2
accepted: 16 February 2016
Published: 11 March 2016
A variety of ecosystem services classification systems and mapping approaches are available in the
scientific and technical literature, which needs to be selected and adapted when applied to complex
territories (e.g. in the interface between water and land, estuary and sea). This paper provides a
framework for addressing ecosystem services in complex coastal regions. The roadmap comprises
the definition of the exact geographic boundaries of the study area; the use of CICES (Common
International Classification of Ecosystem Services) for ecosystem services identification and
classification; and the definition of qualitative indicators that will serve as basis to map the ecosystem
services. Due to its complexity, the Ria de Aveiro coastal region was selected as case study, presenting
an opportunity to explore the application of such approaches at a regional scale. The main challenges
of implementing the proposed roadmap, together with its advantages are discussed in this research.
The results highlight the importance of considering both the connectivity of natural systems and the
complexity of the governance framework; the flexibility and robustness, but also the challenges when
applying CICES at regional scale; and the challenges regarding ecosystem services mapping.

The mapping and assessment of ecosystem services (ES) is one of the core actions (Action 5) of the European
Union’s (EU) Biodiversity Strategy, which aims at “halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem
services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting
global biodiversity loss”1. To support the implementation of Action 5 a working group on Mapping and Assessment
of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) was established2,3. These efforts place the European Union on the course
to achieve its global commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, particularly the Aichi Target 11
on conservation of biodiversity and ES of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas through the expan-
sion of protected areas; and the Target 14 on restoring and safeguarding essential ES.
Approaches to ES mapping are abundant and vary on aim and rational, type of ES analysed, spatial scale, and
source of information2,4,5. Several mapping methodologies’ reviews are available in literature4–9. According to
Martínez-Harms and Balvanera5 review, which focus on social-ecological assessments of ES, the most commonly
mapped ES are carbon storage, carbon sequestration, food production and recreation. The most frequently used
method is the causal relationships based on the understanding of ES and readily available information. Other
methods for mapping ES are extrapolation of primary data (e.g., field data, surveys, and census data), expert
knowledge, regression models and look-up tables. Regional (103–105 km2) and national (105–106 km2) spatial
scales are the most common analysed; and land cover variables, topographical information and spectral vegeta-
tion indices are frequently used as source of information5.
The process of mapping and assessing ES requires a first stage of identification and classification of ES, which
according to Haines‐Young and Potschin10 is foreseen as conceptually and technically challenging. The lack
of understanding on a common definition of the ES concept, together with the variety of purposes, applica-
tions (e.g. environmental accounting, ES mapping, ES valuing) and disciplines involved (e.g. ecology, sociology,
economy, geography), contribute to the debate around ES definition and classification. In this context, in 2009,
the European Environment Agency (EEA) promoted the development of a consistent classification of ES – the
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) – compatible with the design of Integrated

1
Department of Environment and Planning & CESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of
Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. 2Department of Biology & CESAM - Centre
for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro,
Portugal. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to L.P.S. (email: [email protected])

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 1

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1. Overview of the conceptual approach: From the boundaries definition to the ES classification and
mapping. Drawings were generated with Microsoft Visio Professional 2016.

Environmental and Economic Accounting methods. Coordinated by the University of Nottingham, CICES pro-
vides a “common base” for comparison across Europe11.
This classification system has been adopted by the MAES working group and will be used through Europe, by
Member States, in the mapping and assessment of the state of ecosystems and their services3.
When applied to complex coastal regions, these mapping and classification approaches must be adapted to
their biophysical and sociocultural characteristics, governance framework and to the scale of analysis.
Ria de Aveiro coastal region is a complex socio-ecological system given the multiplicity of institutions, organ-
izations and stakeholders involved in its governance, together with the variety of ecosystems included (marine,
freshwater, forest, agro-ecosystems). Therefore, and due to its complexity, at a regional scale, the case study of Ria
de Aveiro coastal region presents an opportunity to explore the application of such approaches. In addition, this
case study is relevant in the European and national context, not only for the coastal lagoon itself and its rich and
diverse natural capital, but also for its central national geographic location in the Atlantic coastal zone, between
two metropolitan areas (Porto and Lisbon). Moreover, the presence of the Aveiro harbour (considered as one of
the most important maritime gates of the Iberian Peninsula and the south of Europe), which allows and strength-
ens both the maritime and terrestrial transport connections with a number of national and international cities12,
turns this coastal area pertinent.
Having Ria de Aveiro coastal region as a show case, the main objectives of this paper are: i) to define the exact
geographic boundaries of a complex coastal region; ii) to identify and classify the ES provided; and iii) to map the
ES provided by a complex coastal region. In this context, the criteria used to define the case study boundaries, as
it involves different ecosystem typologies and a complex governance framework are discussed; the provided ES
are identified; and the most suitable indicators that will serve as basis to map the ES provided are defined (Fig. 1).
This approach follows the principles of integrated and ecosystem-based management approaches, acknowledging
the complexity and the interspecies relationship within ecological systems, but also accounting for social and
governance objectives13. It aims to contribute to the discussion on ES classification and mapping at regional scale.

Methods and Materials

Definition of the geographic area. Geographic boundaries are frequently defined by administrative
boarders, (e.g. county, municipality, parish), statistical units (e.g. NUTS - Nomenclature of Territorial Units for
Statistics) or by jurisdictional boundaries of planning and management tools through plans and programmes
(e.g. strategic planning, land/maritime development, environmental planning). Nevertheless, these boundaries
do not always correspond to the geography of human uses, ecosystem processes or boundaries, such as those
based on biogeography, oceanography and/or bathymetry14. In addition, in the context of an integrated and eco-
system-based management approaches, such boundaries should be taken into account, and a balance between
ecological, social and jurisdictional factors should be achieved15,16.
Therefore, the criteria for defining the study area include:

(i) Analysis of the territory elements (e.g. land cover, topography, bathymetry) and identification of the physi-
cal boundaries of the main studied ecosystems and its interfaces, in order to include significant connective
structures of the landscape (i.e., physical relationships that facilitate the link between different elements in the
landscape or spatial settings across multiple scales, such as blue and green infrastructures) and thus adopt a
system-wide approach17;

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Source ES definition Ecosystems Economic

The conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems,
Daily 50
•
and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life
The benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly,
Costanza et al.51 •
from ecosystem functions
MA 23
The benefits people obtain from ecosystems • •
Components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to
Boyd and Banzhaf21 •
yield human well-being
The aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to pro-
Fisher et al.22 •
duce human well-being
The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human
TEEB24 • •
well-being
Haines‐Young and Potschin 11
The contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being • •

Table 1. ES definitions (adapted from Vandewalle et al.49 Braat and de Groot19 Häyhä and Franzese20).

(ii) Spatial planning and management tools that focus on the study area, particularly at regional or municipal
level for land/maritime development, spatial planning, and/or environmental planning;
(iii) Designated areas for nature conservation under international, supranational or national protected areas
network (e.g. Ramsar Convention, Natura 2000 network, Nature Parks);
(iv) Administrative and statistical boundaries (e.g. parish, municipality, NUTS III), depending on the detail of
the assessment as well as the available information;
(v) Existence, availability and scale of spatial data, which may condition the enforcement of previous criteria.

Identification and classification of ecosystem services. Both the ES concept and the ES classification
have evolved over time with varying attention for the ecosystem basis or the economic use, as summarized in Table 1.
Despite the extensive debate about its adequacy18–20, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) definition
(Table 1) and classification of ES have been widely adopted. Nevertheless, this definition has also been considered
broad and ambiguous21,22, and alternative definitions have been proposed (Table 1).
In 2009, the EEA fostered and supported the development of CICES, which was adopted by the MAES work-
ing group, and will be used by Member States during the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy3. For
this reason, and given that CICES is consistent with existing and accepted typologies of ES (such as MA23 and
TEEB24), and establishes a basis for comparison between ES assessments in different ecosystems and countries25,
the final version of CICES (V4.3) is the classification system used in this research.
CICES follows a hierarchical structure as a way to allow its users to select the most appropriate level of detail
required to their application. At the highest hierarchical level (called ‘Sections’) there are three broad categories11.
Below these major ‘Sections’ are nested a series of ‘Divisions’, ‘Groups’ and ‘Classes’, as shown in Table 2. CICES
considers the outputs of ecosystems dependent on living processes. Abiotic outputs are classified separately and
are hierarchically divided in ‘Sections’, Divisions’ and ‘Groups’. CICES V4.3 does not include abiotic materials and
renewable abiotic energy in its main working matrix, but as an accompanying matrix. In the present study both
matrixes will be considered.
Mapping of ecosystem services. From the variety of ES mapping methodologies consulted, the method-
ology adopted relates to Burkhard et al.4 and Medcalf et al.26 methodologies.
Similarly to Burkhard et al.4, the adopted mapping approach relies on the principle that ecosystems differ in
their capacity to provide ES. Besides, as Medcalf et al.26, it assumes that there is a significant set of available infor-
mation that can be used to either map a given ES or provide a proxy for the service so that it can be mapped. Like
Burkhard et al.4, this approach uses existing spatial data on habitats and land use/land cover (LU/LC) to demon-
strate ecosystems’ capacity to provide ES in a spatial manner. This is complemented with alternative data on
management plans, administrative procedures and legal instruments (e.g., designated areas for, or areas restricted
to, certain activities), biophysical aspects (e.g., soil typology, evapotranspiration rates, position in the landscape,
like next to a watercourse), and human activities (e.g., recreational areas, shellfish collecting areas), similarly to
Medcalf et al.26, enabling to reduce the uncertainty associated and provide maps of actual ES. This approach uses a
set of qualitative indicators that are assigned to each ES and abiotic outputs to indicate its presence. A Geographic
Information System (GIS) based approach is used to map these ecological, biophysical and socioeconomic fea-
tures that illustrate provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services. These maps can be organized
by ‘Division’ or ‘Group’ (under CICES classification) depending on their complexity in order to obtain clear and
visually attractive maps, easily understandable by technicians, planners and other stakeholder groups.

Data acquisition. An important phase in ES mapping is data acquisition, database development, and quality
assessment26,27. In order to implement the proposed methodology, several data needs to be collected and analysed
regarding physical, ecological, socioeconomic, territorial and structural aspects of the study area and its sur-
roundings. Because ecosystems are one of the primary landscape units that provide ES, it is important to analyse
their spatial distribution28. Other features that contribute to the study area characterization and the accuracy of
ES maps are: morphology of the territory (elevation and bathymetry); river network and water bodies; geology;
soil typology; LU/LC; and social and economic data (e.g., population density, buildings and infrastructures),
which provide information regarding the major demands alongside the main drivers of change and pressures29.
Therefore, the resulting geodatabase is composed by multi-source geospatial data in GIS format, which needs to
be assessed regarding its spatial coverage, data projections, suitability, date and frequency of updates27.

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 3

 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Section Division Group Class CW TW FW TE

Cultivated crops •
Reared animals and their outputs •
Wild plants, algae and their outputs • •
Biomass
Wild animals and their outputs • • •
Nutrition
Plants and algae from in-situ aquaculture •
Animals from in-situ aquaculture •
Surface water for drinking
Water
Ground water for drinking
PROVISIONING Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals
• • •
for direct use or processing
Biomass Materials from plants, algae and animals for agricultural
• • •
use
Materials
Genetic materials from all biota •
Surface water for non-drinking purposes • •
Water
Ground water for non-drinking purposes •
Plant-based resources
Biomass-based energy sources
Energy Animal-based resources
Mechanical energy Animal-based energy •
Bio-remediation by micro-organisms, algae, plants, and
• • • •
animals
Mediation by biota
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by mi-
• • • •
cro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals*
Mediation of waste, toxics and other
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by
nuisances • • • •
ecosystems
Mediation by ecosystems Dilution by atmosphere, freshwater and marine ecosys-
• • •
tems
Mediation of smell/noise/visual impacts •
Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates • • •
Mass flows
Buffering and attenuation of mass flows • • •
Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance • • •
Mediation of flows Liquid flows
Flood protection • • •
REGULATION & Storm protection
MAINTENANCE Gaseous / air flows
Ventilation and transpiration •
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and Pollination and seed dispersal • •
gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats • • • •
Pest control* • • • •
Pest and disease control
Disease control
Weathering processes •
Maintenance of physical, chemical, Soil formation and composition
biological conditions Decomposition and fixing processes • • • •
Chemical conditions of freshwaters* • • •
Water conditions
Chemical conditions of salt waters* • • •
Global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas
Atmospheric composition and • • • •
concentrations
climate regulation
Micro and regional climate regulation •
Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in
• • •
different environmental settings
Physical and experiential interactions
Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental
• • •
settings
Physical and intellectual interactions Scientific • • • •
with biota, ecosystems, and land-
/­seascapes [environmental settings] Educational • • •
Intellectual and representational
Heritage, cultural • • •
CULTURAL interactions
Entertainment • • •
Aesthetic • • • •
Symbolic
Spiritual and/or emblematic
Spiritual, symbolic and other interac- Sacred and/or religious
tions with biota, ecosystems, and land-
/­seascapes [environmental settings] Existence* • • • •
Other cultural outputs
Bequest* • • • •

Table 2. Summary of the ES provided by the case study area (CW denotes coastal waters; TW denotes
transitional waters; FW denotes freshwaters; TE denotes terrestrial ecosystems (including agro-ecosystems);
• denotes presence of the ES; *stands for adaptations of CICES V4.3 during the mapping process).

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2. Ria de Aveiro study area and its main territorial elements. Map tiles by Stamen Design
(http://stamen.com) under CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Data by OpenStreetMap
(http://openstreetmap.org), licensed under CC BY-SA. The license terms can be found on the following link:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Sources of ESRI World Topographic Map: Esri, HERE,
DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,
Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, {copyright, serif}
OpenStreetMap contributors, GIS User Community. Pictures copyright: 1 ©Lisa Sousa, 2 ©Nuno Rodrigues,
3 ©Ana Lillebø, 4 ©Célia Laranjeira.

Study area. Coastal territories are considerably diverse and complex, particularly those integrating estuaries
or coastal lagoons such as Ria de Aveiro, as they are transition areas between freshwater and marine systems, and
between aquatic and terrestrial systems30. Moreover, coastal areas are characterized by an intense human presence
and activity, being subject to powerful and growing pressures and impacts.
The study area is located in the northwest coast of Portugal (40°38′ N, 08°45′ W) and is integrated in the Vouga
river catchment area (368,521 ha) (Fig. 2). Ria de Aveiro coastal region integrates urban areas and a wide range
of natural and semi-natural habitats, namely coastal and halophytic habitats (e.g., coastal dunes, coastal lagoon,
salt marshes, salt pans, intertidal flats), agro-ecosystems, woodlands and freshwater rivers and lakes31. The marine
part of the study area is mostly composed by infralittoral fine sand and circalittoral fine sand32. Due to the great
diversity in habitats and bird species, the study area has been integrated in the Nature 2000 network as a Special
Protection Area (SPA) and a Site of Community Importance (SCI). It also incorporates the São Jacinto Dunes
Nature Reserve, the Ramsar Site Pateira de Fermentelos Lake, and Águeda and Cértima Valleys. This region
generates significant economic benefits originated from land and maritime activities such as agriculture and
livestock, fishing, maritime port activity, industry, tourism and recreation30.
The governance framework of Ria de Aveiro coastal region is characterized by the involvement of a vari-
ety of government departments (e.g., Portuguese Environmental Agency – APA I.P; Regional Development
Coordination Commission of the Centre – CCDRC; Aveiro Region Intermunicipal Community – CIRA),
non-governmental agencies and other stakeholders (e.g. land-owners, fishermen associations, sports associa-
tions). In addition, 11 municipalities have jurisdiction over different parts of the case study30,33. The spatial plan-
ning and management of Ria de Aveiro coastal region is performed by programs and plans of national, regional,
inter-municipal and municipal levels. Figure 3 presents a schematic representation of the spatial incidence
(marine and terrestrial) and governance framework of the relevant plans and programmes for the study area.

Results
The case study boundaries definition. Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach to
management that recognises that human uses and ecosystem health are interdependent. Although it considers

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3. Territorial incidence of case study’s relevant planning instruments for both terrestrial and
marine space (after Sousa et al.30). Drawings were generated with Microsoft Visio Professional 2016.

ecological, social and cultural objectives, ecological sustainability is the primary goal of management34,35. To act
in accordance with the objectives of this approach, the delineation of the case study boundaries took into account
the concepts of structural connectivity (based entirely on landscape structure36, i.e. not considering, for now, the
functional responses) and complementarity between the different natural and semi-natural systems – marine,
transitional, riverine, and terrestrial, including human-shaped ecosystems (agro-ecosystems). However, authors
acknowledge the importance of functional connectivity, which is of paramount importance when considering
habitats sensitivity and vulnerability, on risk assessment. To comply with the considered concepts, the study area
includes, besides the Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon (the focus of this research): i) the ecological structures consid-
ered complementary to the lagoon – e.g., the coastal strip between Furadouro (in the North) and Praia de Mira
(in the South) and the lagoon’s margins, responsible for its shape; and the Pateira de Fermentelos freshwater lake,
an important wetland from the conservation point of view; and ii) the connective structures – e.g., rivers that flow
into the lagoon, riparian corridors, and agricultural fields (such as ‘bocage’) between the lagoon and the Pateira
de Fermentelos, which are components of the landscape that can facilitate the biological flows, i.e., which provide
important functional connectivity.
Nevertheless, adjustments to the marine and terrestrial boundaries were made in order to match the existing
management and spatial planning framework30,37 (Fig. 3), namely the Vouga Estuary Program (under develop-
ment) and the Coastal Zone Program (CZP) for the stretch Ovar – Marinha Grande:

(i) inclusion of the estuary margins (50 m measured from the limit of the water body);
(ii) adjustments in the marine boundary up to a depth of 30 m in order to include the marine area covered by the
CZP.

Additionally, adjustments were made to include the limits of the SPA Ria de Aveiro, the SCI Ria de Aveiro, the
Ramsar Site Pateira de Fermentelos Lake, and Águeda and Cértima Valleys.
As result of the adjustments, the study area comprises a total area of 62,535ha of which 30,779ha are marine
and 31,756ha are terrestrial. Its elevation ranges between 0–20 m in most of the study area, reaching 80 m in the
proximity of Pateira de Fermentelos.

Ria de Aveiro coastal region - ecosystem services identification. A total of 59 ES and abiotic out-
puts were initially considered in this analysis, following the CICES system for both ES and abiotic outputs. The
identification of the ES provided by the study area was based on Barbier et al.38, Maltby et al.39, Salomidi et al.40,
ADAPT-MED41, Liquete et al.8, Sousa et al.42, and Lillebø et al.31.
For the purpose of presenting the ES identified both in a concise way and without losing detailed information,
the study area was divided in four major ecosystem typologies, similar to those defined by Maes et al.3: coastal
waters, transitional waters, freshwaters, terrestrial ecosystems (including agro-ecosystems). ES related to green
infrastructures within urban areas were not considered in this study since the current spatial scale does not allow
the degree of detail required for that type of analysis.

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of ES classes and abiotic outputs present in Ria de Aveiro coastal region
under the division ‘nutrition’. (a) Detail of Ria de Aveiro central area. (b) Fishing restricted area (Public Notice
no. 01/2012). Map generated with ArcGIS 10.

The ES and abiotic outputs delivered by the Ria de Aveiro coastal region were identified and briefly described
in Table 2 (a detailed description is given in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). Regarding abiotic outputs, it was
identified the provision of mineral nutritional substances (e.g. marine salt), associated to transitional waters;
non-metallic materials (e.g. sand and gravel), associated to coastal waters; and weather regulation, both associated
to transitional and freshwaters.

Spatial distribution of ecosystem services. A set of qualitative indicators, summarized in Table 3, were
identified and assigned to each ES and abiotic outputs. This selection took into account the existence and accessi-
bility of spatial data, which serves as a proxy of the service so it could be mapped. Only the ES and abiotic outputs
identified in Table 2 were considered in Table 3; however, not all have an assigned indicator due to the lack of spa-
tial data (e.g. hunting, under the ES class ‘wild animals and their outputs’) or due to the nature of the ES (e.g. inspi-
ration and sense of place under ‘aesthetic’ ES class, and traditional boats under ‘heritage, cultural’). Additionally,
during the ES and abiotic outputs mapping exercise, some issues were identified regarding the application of the
CICES (see Discussion section), resulting in small adaptations of CICES V4.3 table, highlighted in Table 2 with
an asterisk. The full list of indicators used to map the ES and abiotic outputs delivered by Ria de Aveiro coastal
region, along with the typology and source of data used are given in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Whenever possible and appropriate, data on administrative processes and legal instruments were used in combi-
nation with spatial data as a mean to achieve more accurate maps and consistent with the case study reality. This was
especially the case of provisioning and cultural services (e.g. Salicornia sp. harvesting, fishing and shellfish collecting,
archaeological sites, protected areas). The class ‘wild plants, algae and their outputs’ within division ‘nutrition’, for
instance, refers to wild glasswort Salicornia sp., which is present in almost all salt pans; however, only one of them is

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 7

 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Section Division Group Class Indicator

Cultivated crops Presence of annual crops, rice fields and “bocage”
Reared animals and their outputs Presence of pastures and “bocage”
Wild plants, algae and their outputs Presence of authorized collecting areas
Nutrition Biomass Presence of fishing zones, shellfish collecting areas,
Wild animals and their outputs
hunting areas
Plants and algae from in-situ aquaculture Presence of active units
Animals from in-situ aquaculture Presence of active units
Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and Presence of reed marshes along Ria de Aveiro, mudflats,
PROVISIONING animals for direct use or processing and forested habitats
Biomass Materials from plants, algae and animals for Presence of Zostera noltei bed habitat subgroup and
agricultural use rush marsh
Materials Genetic materials from all biota Presence of “bocage”
Presence of rivers, ditches, freshwater lakes, aquacul-
Surface water for non-drinking purposes ture, active salt pans, transitional waters, and water
Water scooper operation areas
Ground water for non-drinking purposes Presence of groundwater abstraction points
Energy Mechanical energy Animal-based energy Presence of pastures and “bocage”
Bio-remediation by micro-organisms, algae, All the considered habitats (e.g. intertidal flats, soils,
Mediation by biota
plants, and animals aquatic and terrestrial vegetated areas)
Presence of salt marshes, reed marshes, intertidal flats
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by
Mediation of waste, toxics and (including Zostera noltei beds), coastal waters, riparian
biota and ecosystems
other nuisances and alluvial forests
Mediation by ecosystems
Dilution by atmosphere, freshwater and marine Presence of coastal waters, transitional waters and
ecosystems freshwaters
Mediation of smell/noise/visual impacts Presence of “bocage”
Presence of coastal dunes, salt marshes, reed marshes,
Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates Zostera noltei beds, forests (including alluvial and ripar-
ian forest), natural grassland, and shrubland
Mass flows
Presence of salt marshes, reed marshes, Zostera
Buffering and attenuation of mass flows noltei beds, coastal waters, transitional waters, and
freshwaters
Mediation of flows
Presence of riparian forest, salt marshes and other areas
Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance
with high evapotranspiration
Liquid flows
Presence of coastal dunes, salt marshes, reed marshes,
REGULATION & Flood protection
riparian forest, and “bocage”
MAINTENANCE
Gaseous/air flows Ventilation and transpiration Presence of “bocage”
Presence of forests (including alluvial and riparian
Pollination and seed dispersal
forest), and “bocage” along low lands of Vouga river
Lifecycle maintenance, Presence of rivers, freshwater lakes, transitional waters,
habitat and gene pool salt pans, salt marshes, reed marshes, intertidal flats
protection (including Zostera noltei beds), coastal waters, “bocage”,
Maintaining nursery populations and habitats
fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation, and dunes
with Salix, and forests (including alluvial and riparian
forest)
Maintenance of physical,
chemical, biological conditions Presence of fluvisols combined with forests and
Weathering processes
Soil formation and floodplain areas
composition All the considered habitats (e.g. intertidal flats, soils,
Decomposition and fixing processes
aquatic and terrestrial vegetated areas)
Presence of coastal waters, forests (including alluvial
Global climate regulation by reduction of green-
Atmospheric composition and riparian forest), forested dunes, salt marshes, reed
house gas concentrations
and climate regulation marshes, and Zostera noltei beds
Micro and regional climate regulation Presence of “bocage”
Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/ Designated places for birdwatching and land-/seascape
Physical and experiential seascapes in different environmental settings appreciation
interactions Physical use of land-/seascapes in different envi-
Area of activity (e.g. sailing, canoeing, surfing)
ronmental settings
Scientific Territory subject of scientific research
Physical and intellectual interac-
tions with biota, ecosystems, and Location of eco-museums, and environmental inter-
CULTURAL Educational
land- /seascapes [environmental pretative centres
settings]
Intellectual and representa- Designated subaquatic archaeological sites, location of
tive interactions Heritage, cultural buildings with traditional architecture, and location of
traditional activities
Entertainment Location of the festivals and fairs
Aesthetic Location of permanent artistic exhibitions
Nutritional abiotic substances Mineral NA Presence of active salt pans
Abiotic materials Non-metallic NA Designated areas for sand and gravel exploitation
ABIOTIC OUTPUTS
Maintenance of physical, chemical, By natural chemical and Presence of transitional waters, rivers, and freshwater
NA
abiotic conditions physical processes lakes

Table 3. Summary of the indicators used to map the ES and abiotic outputs provided by the case study (NA
denotes not applicable).

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

certified and authorized to commercialize it. Thus, only this salt pan was mapped (Fig. 4). Another example is the
class ‘wild animals and their outputs’ under the same division. The entire coastal lagoon has potential for fishing;
however, this activity is forbidden in certain areas within Aveiro harbour jurisdiction to ensure the safety of naviga-
tion, people and goods (Legal Notice no. 01/2012). This results in the exclusion of these areas from the map (Fig. 4).
The proposed indicators for mapping regulating and maintenance services are dominantly based on the presence
and distribution of habitats units; however, in the case of the ES classes ‘hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance’
(within the division ‘mediation of flows’) and ‘weathering processes’ (within the division ‘maintenance of physical, chem-
ical, biological conditions’) complementary data was considered to achieve a more accurate representation of the ES.
Therefore, for the ‘hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance’ case, areas with higher evapotranspiration rates were
considered beyond the riparian and alluvial habitats. For the ‘weathering processes’ case, the type of soil was combined
with the land cover and floodplain areas (Fig. 5), i.e. the ES is represented by the areas which integrates both fluvisols
and forests, or both fluvisols and floodplain areas. Although the climate and topography have influence in the weather-
ing processes, they were not considered since these factors are quite regular within the study area.
A significant number of cultural services are geometrically represented by points, not only because of the
reduced area (even at this scale) occupied by the ES (e.g. subaquatic archaeological sites), but also due to the
nature of the ES. The ES class ‘entertainment’, for instance, refers to ex-situ experiences of the Ria de Aveiro coastal
region through festivals and fairs. The location of such festivals and fairs is mapped despite the fact that the ser-
vice is provided by the existence of salt pans in the coastal lagoon, for example, or the existence of a long tradition
of fishing and shellfish collecting in the lagoon. Another example of this technical detail is the use of points to
map birdwatching and landscape enjoyment under the ‘experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in
different environmental settings’ class. The locations that allow a better enjoyment of the ES are mapped, despite
the fact that is the landscape characteristics, or the birds’ diversity that provide the service (Fig. 6).

Discussion
The process of defining the study area boundaries, identifying and mapping the ES raised some challenges. The
fact that coastal lagoons are interface ecosystems hampers the definition of strict boundaries, essential for the
scope of this research. Therefore, there was the need to ensure the link between marine, transitional and riverine
systems without losing focus on the main feature of this study, the Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon. Boundaries defi-
nition is a crucial step for the identification and classification of ES, since it enables the understanding on the type
of ecosystems present. This is particularly important when considering the existence of land-based recreation
activities, for instance, driven by the coastal lagoon (e.g. bird watching, angling, walking), or for example the role
of coastal dunes in contributing to the lagoon’s integrity. Moreover, the compliance of the study area with the legal
framework is considered an advantage since it enables the integration of these results in the spatial planning and
management tools, and facilitates funding acquisition for its implementation or development.
CICES reveals to be suitable to classify ES of complex coastal regions, with minor adjustments according to
the scale of analysis, data availability, and its biophysical and sociocultural characteristics. While establishing a
common typology of ES – underpinned on clear concepts and principles – CICES is flexible enough to be adapted
to different realities, conditions, scales (e.g. Belgium25, Ria de Aveiro - this study), and purposes (e.g. mapping,
economic valuation). This is possible because i) CICES is based on clear and well defined concepts; ii) it fol-
lows a hierarchical structure that allows the adoption of different levels of detail according to the user’s interest;
iii) each level of the hierarchical structure has been designed in a way that there is no overlapping nor redun-
dancy; and iv) it is focused on “final” services or outputs from ecosystems that people use or value, in order to
avoid double counting11,25. However, the ‘regulation and maintenance’ section is relatively specific and requires
scientific in-depth knowledge about biological and physic-chemical processes, which can be a constraint to its use
by decision-makers, technicians, planners, or even by general public.
During the mapping exercise, some issues arose driven by different reasons, which led to minor adaptations to
the CICES V4.3 in order to better integrate the case study conditions, scale of analysis and available data:

(i) Lack of spatially detailed information to distinguish the biota (micro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals)
from the ecosystem. This is the case of the ES classes ‘filtration/ sequestration/ storage/ accumulation by
microorganisms, algae, plants and animals’ and ‘filtration/ sequestration/ storage/ accumulation by ecosystems’
within the division ‘mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances’. Thus, the ES was spatially represented
by the ecosystem components (salt marshes and reed marshes, intertidal flats, coastal waters, riparian and
alluvial forests) and referred as ‘filtration/ sequestration/ storage/ accumulation by biota and ecosystems’.
(ii) Lack of supporting information for the ES group ‘water conditions’ regarding the underlying service to
achieve such state. In the mapping exercise, this group was excluded since it was considered that the pro-
posed indicators3 reflect an ecosystem status based on chemical indicators, specifically the indicators for the
trophic status, and not the provided service. Therefore, it reflects the status due to environmental pressures
(eutrophication) instead of the provided service. On the other hand, ‘water conditions’ in the scope of the
WFD includes also the biological indicators and the priority substances.
(iii) Insufficient knowledge (particularly about the species and their distribution) regarding “natural” biolog-
ical control has led to the use of the abundance and distribution of alien species or host-species as proxy
indicators for the ‘pest control’ (e.g. Maes et al.3). Again, the proposed indicator reflects the resistance to the
environmental pressure (alien species) and not the provided service. However, despite of acknowledging the
existence of alien species in the case study (Table 2), this service was not mapped to avoid its misinterpretation
or undermine the communication with the technicians, the general public and other stakeholder groups. Never-
theless, authors acknowledge that the spatial distribution of the alien species, and its monitoring, is of paramount
importance for the management of ecosystems, and should be considered during a vulnerability assessment.

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of ES classes present in Ria de Aveiro coastal region under the group ‘soil
formation and composition’. (a) Detail of the spatial distribution of forest and floodplain areas. (b) Detail of
the spatial distribution of fluvisols. Map generated in ArcGIS 10.

(iv) Ambiguity and subjectivity associated to the group ‘other cultural outputs’ of the division ‘spiritual, sym-
bolic and other interaction with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings]’. In line
with the CICES adaptation to Belgium25, this ES group was perceived as part of a valuation analysis and
therefore it was excluded from the mapping.

The varying quality, scale and accuracy of the collected data created a barrier, requiring data refinement,
reclassification, and projection. Data preparation involved projection to the same coordinate system (in
this case ETRS 89 - European Terrestrial Reference System 1989), and data refinement, particularly regard-
ing data on habitat distribution, LU/LC, and seabed benthic habitats, which were collected for the study area
from regional, national, and European sources, covering the years 2011, 2007, and 2014, respectively. These
pre-existing, but scattered, data was used as starting point to display ecosystems’ spatial distribution, since
they are the primary landscape unit that provide ES. Whenever possible, preference was given to more detailed
information.
For the terrestrial area overlapping the SPA Ria de Aveiro it was used the habitat map produced by AMBIECO43
in the scope of the Characterization Study on Ria de Aveiro Ecological Quality for the Polis Litoral Ria de Aveiro. The
habitat map production was based on rectified orthophoto images (from 2005 with spatial resolution of 0.5–1 m)
from the Portuguese Geographic Institute (IGP), and complemented with latest information from Bing (2009) and
GoogleEarth (2009, 2010, 2011). For the remaining terrestrial area it was used the second level (15 classes) of LU/LC
for Continental Portugal (COS2007), produced by IGP44. COS2007 was produced based on visual interpretation of
rectified and high resolution (50 cm) orthophoto images. COS2007 is in vector format and has a minimum mapping
unit of 1ha.
For the marine part of the study area (up to 30 m depth) it was used the benthic habitat map from
MESHAtlantic project (last updated in February 2014), available in the European Marine Observation and Data

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 10

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of ES classes present in Ria de Aveiro coastal region under the division
‘physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and landscapes’. Map generated with ArcGIS 10.

Network (EMODnet) website (http://www.emodnet-hydrography.eu/). The MESHAtlantic project covers over

356,000 km2 of seabed habitats of the European North Atlantic Ocean and used a broad-scale mapping method,
proposed within the INTERREG MESH project, which is based on available information or on data derived from
mathematical models of the marine environment. The broad-scale map is a map of the physical characteristics of
the habitats with a 250 m grid resolution (which is roughly equivalent to a scale of 1:1,000,000) and uses the level
4 of the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) classification habitat types45.
In order to combine these three sources of information, the habitat classification was refined to harmonize the
LU/LC taxonomies with the habitat classification (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Table S3).
All these challenges, along with the significant complexity of social-ecological systems and the scientific
attempts to cope with that complexity46–48, contribute to a certain degree of uncertainty that must be internalized
when using and communicating the results. Bellow we identify some of the sources of uncertainty:

(i) Generalization and categorization used to reduce complex landscapes into a limited number of LU/LC, or
habitat classes47. In the case study of Ria de Aveiro coastal region, whenever possible, it was given preference
to habitat data, which was the most accurate available information. In the absence of more detailed infor-
mation, the second level of COS2007 and the MESHAtlantic benthic habitat were used.
(ii) Another source of uncertainty is the spatial and temporal mismatches of different sources of data. For ex-
ample, in Ria de Aveiro coastal region, spatial data from different years and with different spatial resolutions
had to be combined in order to fill the spatial gaps in habitat map. Moreover, even the most recent available
data has more than five years.
(iii) The ES classification system itself can be a source of uncertainty because of the ambiguity present in some
classes, as previously referred. Some ES are difficult to assign to specific spatial units. For example, ‘aesthetic’

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 11

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 7. Detail of sources/typologies of data-(a) Habitats from AMBIECO/ PLRA, 2011; (b) Benthic habitats
from MESHAtlantic, 2014; (c) COS2007, from IGP, 2010- used to obtain the final habitat map (d) for the Ria de
Aveiro coastal region. Map generated with ArcGIS 10.

class and ‘other cultural outputs’ group within cultural services are appreciated in a very subjective manner
and related to the landscape compositions47 and other social factors (e.g., cultural).
(iv) Assumptions made in the course of the mapping, for example regarding the ecological status of the biotope
and its ability to provide a certain ES.

Conclusions
The proposed framework proved to be suitable for addressing ES in complex coastal regions. On the one
hand, it uses clear and objective criteria for delineating the geographic area, respecting the connectivity of
natural systems but also the complexity of the governance framework, usual in these systems. Therefore,
the analysis at a regional scale and the integration of several ecosystem typologies is seen as crucial for such
socio-ecological systems. The use of the internationally accepted CICES classification, although adapted to
the case study reality and scale, is seen as an advantage, allowing comparisons with other studies. On the
other hand, the fact that the mapping approach is based on existing and available data, considers a wide
range of ES and abiotic outputs, and uses mainstream software, means that this approach should be some-
how easily replicable by technicians, and planners without investing large amounts of human and economic
resources.
Exploring the application of CICES and an ES mapping approach based on qualitative indicators to Ria de
Aveiro coastal region also allowed the identification of a number of pertinent issues. For instance, because the
classes within regulation and maintenance services are relatively specific and require scientific-specific knowl-
edge about biological and physic-chemical processes, CICES application by decision-makers, technicians, and
planners can be demanding. Regarding the mapping approach, inspiration, and sense of place services within
the ES class ‘aesthetic’ provided by the Ria de Aveiro coastal region, which is deeply present in the region30, still
remains a challenge. Additionally, the mapping approach assumes that every part of a given ecosystem is of equal
value with regard to its capacity to provide ES, without taking into consideration the ecosystems’ health, or the
fact that certain habitats might have comparatively higher or lower potential to provide a certain service. The
integration and analysis of additional information (e.g., ecosystem quality status data, the design of rules that
could help grade the importance of different habitats capacity in providing ES) in the mapping process opens
further opportunities.

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 12

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

References
1. European Commission. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (2011).
2. Maes, J. et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 31–39
(2012).
3. Maes, J. et al. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in the EU: Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European Union, 2014).
4. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F. & Windhorst, W. Landscapes’ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services – a Concept for Land-
Cover Based Assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22 (2009).
5. Martínez-Harms, M. J. & Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv.
Manag. 8, 17–25 (2012).
6. Eigenbrod, F. et al. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 377–385
(2010).
7. Egoh, B., Drakou, E. G., Dunbar, M. B., Maes, J. & Willemen, L. Indicators for mapping ecoystem services: a review (2012).
8. Liquete, C. et al. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic
review. PLoS One 8, e67737 (2013).
9. Malinga, R., Gordon, L. J., Jewitt, G. & Lindborg, R. Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review. Ecosyst.
Serv. 13, 57–63 (2015).
10. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. Typology/Classification of Ecosystem Services. OpenNESS Synthesis paper. 1–8 (2014).
11. Haines-young, R. & Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services ( CICES ): Consultation on Version 4.
August-December 2012. (2013).
12. LAGOONS. D2.1b - The Ria de Aveiro Lagoon - Current knowledge base and knowledge gaps (2011).
13. Long, R. D., Charles, A. & Stephenson, R. L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60 (2015).
14. Beck, M. W., Ferdaña, Z., Kachmar, J., Morrison, K. K. & Taylor, P. H. Best Practices for Marine Spatial Planning. The Nature
Conservancy (2009).
15. Crowder, L. & Norse, E. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Mar.
Policy 32, 772–778 (2008).
16. Gilliland, P. M. & Laffoley, D. Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Mar.
Policy 32, 787–796 (2008).
17. UNEP-WCMC. National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress (2008).
18. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. Methodologies for defining and assessing ecosystem services. Cent. Environ. Manag. Rep. 1–84
(2009).
19. Braat, L. C. & de Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and
development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 4–15 (2012).
20. Häyhä, T. & Franzese, P. P. Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol.
Modell. 289, 124–132 (2014).
21. Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63,
616–626 (2007).
22. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K. & Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653
(2009).
23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A framework assessment. (Island Press, 2003).
24. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. (Earthscan, 2010).
25. Turkelboom, F. et al. CICES Going Local: Ecosystem Services Classification Adapted for a Highly Populated Country. Ecosyst. Serv.
Glob. Issues, Local Pract. 223–247 (2013).
26. Medcalf, K., Small, N., Finch, C. & Parker, J. Spatial framework for assessing evidence needs for operational ecosystem approaches.
Rep. to JNCC (No 469) (2012).
27. Peña, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I. & Onaindia, M. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation
approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 108–118 (2015).
28. Nemec, K. T. & Raudsepp-Hearne, C. The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodivers.
Conserv. 22, 1–15 (2013).
29. Westcountry Rivers Trust Funded. Participatory Ecosystem Services Visualisation Framework: Making effective use of data & evidence
to inform catchment management planning.
30. Sousa, L., Lillebø, A., Soares, J. & Alves, F. In Coastal Lagoons in Europe: Integrated Water Resource Strategies (Chapter 4) (eds.
Lillebo, A., Stalnacke, P. & Gooch, G. D.) 31–38 (IWA Publishers, 2015).
31. Lillebø, A. et al. In Coastal Lagoons in Europe: Integrated Water Resource Strategies (Chapter 3) (eds. Lillebo, A., Stalnacke, P. &
Gooch, G. D.) 21–29 (IWA Publishers, 2015).
32. MESHAtlantic. Predicted broad-scale EUNIS habitats - Atlantic area. Published on 10 December 2013, updated on 11th February
2014. (2014). at http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/download .
33. Fidelis, T. & Roebeling, P. Water resources and land use planning systems in portugal-exploring better synergies through ria de
aveiro. Land use policy 39, 84–95 (2014).
34. CBD. Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) biogeographic classification (2009).
35. McLeod, K. L., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R. & Rosenberg, A. A. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based
Management (2005).
36. Kindlmann, P. & Burel, F. Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 879–890 (2008).
37. Alves, F. L., Sousa, L. P., Almodovar, M. & Phillips, M. R. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): A review of progress in
Portuguese implementation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13, 1031–1042 (2013).
38. Barbier, E. B. et al. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193 (2011).
39. Maltby, E. et al. In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report 295–360 (2011).
40. Salomidi, M. et al. Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping
stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management. Mediteranean Mar. Sci. 13, 49–88 (2012).
41. ADAPT-MED. D2.1b - Baixo Vouga Lagunar Knowledge Database (2013).
42. Sousa, L. P., Lillebø, A. I., Gooch, G. D. & Soares, J. a & Alves, F. L. Incorporation of Local Knowledge in the Identification of Ria de
Aveiro Lagoon Ecosystem Services (Portugal). J. Coast. Res. 1051–1056 (2013).
43. AMBIECO/PLRA. Estudo da Caracterização da Qualidade Ecológica da Ria de Aveiro. Ria de Aveiro POLIS LITORAL, AMBIECO
(2011).
44. Instituto Geográfico Português. Carta de Uso e Ocupação do Solo de Portugal Continental para 2007 (COS 2007) (2010).
45. MESHAtlantic. Generating broad-scale EUNIS habitat map (2013).
46. Carpenter, S. R., Bennett, E. M. & Peterson, G. D. Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2006).
47. Hou, Y., Burkhard, B. & Müller, F. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127,
S117–S131 (2013).
48. Schulp, C. J. E., Burkhard, B., Maes, J., Van Vliet, J. & Verburg, P. H. Uncertainties in Ecosystem Service Maps: A Comparison on the
European Scale. PLoS One 9, e109643 (2014).

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 13

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

49. Vandewalle, M. et al. Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services - RUBICODE (2008).
50. Daily, G. C. In Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (ed. Daily, G.) 1–10 (Island Press, 1997).
51. Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’ s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the European Commission, under the 7th Framework Programme, through the
collaborative research project LAGOONS (contract n° 283157); by the FCT/MEC national funding to CESAM
(UID/AMB/50017/2013); and by FEDER co-funding within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete
2020. The PhD grant SFRH/BD/79170/2011 (L.P. Sousa) and the Post-Doc grant SFRH/BPD/79537/2011 (A.I.
Sousa) supported by FCT are also acknowledged.

Author Contributions
L.P.S., F.L.A. and A.I.L. conceived the study design and the article structure. F.L.A. and A.I.L. supervised the
research. L.P.S. collected the spatial data, processed the data, conducted the spatial analysis, and prepared
the figures. A.I.L., A.I.S., F.L.A. and L.P.S. contributed to the ecosystem services and qualitative indicators
identification. L.P.S. led the writing of the manuscript with contributions from all authors.

Additional Information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at http://www.nature.com/srep
Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
How to cite this article: Sousa, L. P. et al. Ecosystem services provided by a complex coastal region: challenges
of classification and mapping. Sci. Rep. 6, 22782; doi: 10.1038/srep22782 (2016).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images
or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license,
users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Scientific Reports | 6:22782 | DOI: 10.1038/srep22782 14