Table 3.
Ecosystem capacity to provide ES.
| El Uvito (Salamina) | Regulating | α = 0.79 | Material | α =0.76 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecosystem/land cover | Area (ha) | Land cover area (%) | Water regulation ranking (1–5) | Adjusted∗ ranking | Water supply ranking (1–5) | Adjusted ranking |
| Forests | 147.9 | 26% | 5 | 1.31 | 4.4 | 1.2 |
| Pastures | 255.69 | 45% | 1.1 | 0.50 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| Heterogeneous agricultural areas | 160.37 | 28% | 2.8 | 0.28 | 2.2 | 0.6 |
| 563.96 | 100% | 2.97 | 2.09 | 2.50 | 2.20 | |
| La Máquina (Viterbo) | Regulating | α = 0.79 | Material | α =0.76 | ||
| Ecosystem/land cover (Ha) | Area (ha) | Land cover area (%) | Water regulation ranking | Adjusted∗ value | Water supply ranking | Adjusted value |
| Forests | 15.81 | 4% | 5 | 0.20 | 4.4 | 0.89 |
| Pastures | 9.31 | 2% | 1.1 | 0.03 | 0.9 | 0.02 |
| Heterogeneous agricultural areas | 367.54 | 94% | 2.8 | 2.62 | 2.2 | 2.06 |
| 392.66 | 100% | 2.97 | 2.85 | 2.50 | 2.97 | |
∗
The adjusted ranking refers to the fact that the rankings provided by the experts were adapted to the percentage of the specific land cover with respect to the total area. For example, in El Uvito, the forest has a rank of five for water regulation; however, not all of the area is covered by forest, so this value of 5 only explains 26% of the total capacity of the area to regulate water.