Search

Ecosystem services has been widely explored in various theoretical or practical studies since its emergence more than 20 years ago. The two big issues in the past golden era of ecosystem services research were: ecosystem services valuing and ecosystem services trade-offs. We analyzed advantages of ecosystem services in promoting the attention that government and the public pay to the natural capital and the management of ecosystem services, together with summarizing the shortcomings. It was found that ecosystem services valuing made the public aware of the importance of natural capital from an economic perspective, while ecosystem services trade-offs highlighted the relationship between various ecosystem services from an ecological perspective, which could be better applied to ecosystem services-based ecosystem management. With an increasing number of papers focusing on ecosystem services flows, it is believed that ecosystem services flows integrating ecology, economy, sociology and geography disciplines will become a new key direction after ecosystem services valuing and trade-offs. To further promote the study of ecosystem services flows that link human and nature within geographical context, we need to focus on the value of ecosystem services flows with payment and benefit accounting, the relationship of ecosystem services flows by trade-off and synergy analysis, and the direction of ecosystem services flows by spatial and temporal assessment. In addition, a more efficient and widely recognized method is also essential for the development of quantifying ecosystem services flow. This study contributes to understanding the development stage of ecosystem services research and highlights the importance of ecosystem services flow research.

Requirements Engineering is a multidisciplinary and a human-centered process, therefore, the artifacts produced from RE are always error-prone. The most significant of these errors are missing or misunderstanding requirements. Information loss in RE could result in omitted logic in the software, which will be onerous to correct at the later stages of development. In this paper, we demonstrate and investigate how interactive and Loud Paper Prototyping (LPP) can be integrated to collect stakeholders’ needs and expectations than interactive prototyping or face-to-face meetings alone. To this end, we conducted a case study of (1) 31 mobile application (App) development teams who applied either of interactive or loud prototyping and (2) 19 mobile App development teams who applied only the face-to-face meetings. From this study, we found that while using Silent Paper Prototyping (SPP) rather than No Paper Prototyping (NPP) is a more efficient technique to capture Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs), User Interface (UI) requirements, and existing requirements, LPP is more applicable to manage NFRs, UI requirements, as well as adding new requirements and removing/modifying the existing requirements. We also found that among LPP and SPP, LPP is more efficient to capture and influence Functional Requirements (FRs).