Boxes of rain: A systematic review on the classes and frameworks of ecosystem disservices

Abstract

Despite the numerous benefits we derive from ecosystems as ecosystem services (ES), negative impacts on human health and well-being also occur as ecosystem disservices (ED). To study ED, researchers box them into classes and create conceptual frameworks to support their identification, assessment, and communication. It is unclear what classes and frameworks now exist for ED, their relative uptake in the literature, and their potential application across socio-ecological contexts. We conduct a systematic literature review of ED classification systems and frameworks to take stock and synthesize this growing but scattered body of research. We find strong uptake of several influential articles but persisting inconsistency of classifications and oversimplification of ED processes within frameworks. Aggregating existing classifications and frameworks, we draw on lessons learned to propose the Composite Ecosystem Disservices (CED) framework. We call for increased ED research, greater comparability and replicability allowing for transdisciplinarity, and conceptual underpinnings that recognize social-ecological interconnections.

Keywords: Classification; Ecosystem disservices; Ecosystem services; Framework; Planning and management; Urban green infrastructure.

Fig. 1

Thematic mapping plot of KeyWords Plus generated using Bibliometrix (Aria et al. 2022) within the 535 articles in the larger ED dataset

Fig. 2

Systematic review process with included/excluded articles at each step. Light blue boxes represent the final data sets for analyses. 11 articles contain both a new or adapted framework and classification system. PRISMA diagram from Page et al. (2021)

Fig. 3

Tabular representation of how ecosystem disservice (ED) classifications from a) articles that propose a classification and b) articles that only apply a classification fit into 4 overarching ED boxes—ecological, economic, health and safety, and social and cultural. Note in part a) Guo et al. (2022) and Lliso et al. (2022); Soga and Gaston (2022); Ceauşu et al. (2019) and in part b) Andrade et al. (2024); Semeraro et al. (2021) are not shown given their high divergence in thematic classes (see Table 2B)

Fig. 4

The Composite Ecosystem Disservices (CED) framework synthesizes knowledge from the reviewed frameworks and classifications, aiming to increase applicability across contexts and orient use toward research and policy for the management and mitigation of ED