Applications of CICES

  • While developed initially in an accounting context, CICES has been taken up more widely by the ecosystem services community, and is, for example, the framework being used in the EU MAES Process, which aims to map ecosystem services at the European Scale, in order to meet the commitments made under Action 5 of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Maes et al., 2014).
  • In other work Crossman et al. (2013) suggest that such a classification might be seen as part of a more general systematic approach or ‘blue print’ for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. In looking to develop these more standardised approaches, Busch et al. (2012) have argued that it is especially important to develop classification systems, such as CICES, that are ‘geographically and hierarchically consistent’ so that we can make comparisons between regions, and integrate detailed local studies into a broader geographical understandings.
  • Elsewhere is has been refined at the most detailed class level to meet the requirements of ecosystem assessments in Belgium (Turkelboom et al., 2013). The CICES Classifier tool that is available on the web shows how the Belgian classification relates to CICES; follow this link.
  • Saastamoinen et al. (2014) have used it to classify ecosystem services associated with the boreal forests of Finland. Accounting applications include those of Schröter et al. (2014).
  • CICES has also been used to look at the basis for developing or comparing indicators of ecosystem service supply and demand; examples include the work of Castro et al. (2014), Kosenius et al. (2013) and von Haaren et al. (2014). And, in other work, Bürgi et al. (2015) have used CICES to examine how ecosystem service output had changed for a Swiss landscape since about 1900; the classification framework was used to code the reports from achieve sources about whether things that we would now regard as ecosystem services were documented as important in past periods.
  • Czúcz et al. (2018) provides a systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES V4.3. The results provided some insights into the way the classification might be revised and has therefore informed the development of V5.1.



  • Bürgi, M., Silbernagel, J., Wu, J., and Kienast, F. (2015). Linking ecosystem services with landscape history. Landscape Ecology, vol 30, no 1, pp. 11-20
  • Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V., and Erhard, M. (2012). Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services.Ecological Indicators, vol 21, pp. 89-103
  • Castro, A. J., Verburg, P. H., Martín-López, B., et al. (7 authors) (2014). Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 132, pp. 102-110
  • Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., et al. (14 authors) (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4-14.
  • Czúcz, B., Ildikó Arany, I,  Potschin-Young, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Kiss, M., Aszalós, R. and Haines-Young, R. (2018) Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES, Ecosystem Services, Volume 29, Part A, Pages 145-157, ISSN 2212-0416,
  • Kosenius, A. K., Haltia, E., Horne, P., Kniivilä, M., and Saastamoinen, O. (2014).Value of ecosystem services? Examples and experiences on forests, peatlands, agricultural lands, and freshwaters in Finland. PTT Working Papers 244. Pellervo Economic Research, Helsinki.
  • Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M. et al. (45 authors) (2014) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020. 2nd final report, European Union, February 2014
  • Saastamoinen, O., Matero, J., Horne, P. et al. (7 authors) (2014). Classification of boreal forest ecosystem goods and services in Finland. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Reports and Studies in Forestry and Natural Sciences Number 11, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences
  • Schröter, M., Barton, D. N., Remme, R. P., and Hein, L. (2014). Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators, vol 36, pp. 539-551
  • Turkelboom, F., Raquez, P., Dufrêne, M., et al. (19 authors) (2013). CICES going local: Ecosystem services classification adapted for a highly populated country. In Jacobs, S., Dendoonker, N., and Keune, H. (eds) Ecosystem Services. Chicago, pp. 223-247
  • von Haaren, C., Albert, C., Barkmann, J., de Groot, R. S., Spangenberg, J. H., Schröter-Schlaack, C., & Hansjürgens, B. (2014). From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management. Landscape ecology, vol 29, no 8, pp. 1335-1346