ANNEX 2
MAPS BELGIUM
(1) Flanders QuickScan-maps
The average score obtained for each land use type was applied to the land use map of Flanders and Brussels.
The average score is calculated for each ES category (provisioning, regulating and cultural).
(Figures 1, 2 and 3).
Table 2: The mean scores for each of the land use x ES combinations.
Groundwater
Wood
Food
Fodder
Wild food
Energy
Water quality
Air quality
Noise
Water flow
Erosion control
Inundation control
Coastal protection
Global climate
Local climate
Soil quality
Pollination
Pest control
Cultural services
Land use ↓ / ES →
Build up area
Park
Garden
Vegetable farming
Cropland
Short rotation coppice
Orchard
Small landscape element
Decidious forest
Coniferous forest
Natural decidious forest
Natural pine forest
Pastures
Natural grassland
Pioneer vegetation
Shrub
Heathland
Marshes
Marsh forest
Water body
Water course
Intertidal flats
Beach & dunes
Regulatig services
Surface water
Provisioning services
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.8
2
1.9
2.2
2
1.8
2.1
2.2
2
2.1
3.5
3.4
4.6
4.8
1.7
1.7
0.6
2.7
2.4
1.6
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.8
3.4
3.1
2.9
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.6
4
4.1
3.8
3.2
2.1
2.7
0.2
1.8
1.2
0.1
0.2
2.6
1.4
2.1
4.8
4.8
3.8
3.8
0.2
0.2
0.7
1.2
0.4
0.4
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.9
2.8
5
4.8
0.1
4.2
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.1
1.6
4.1
0.3
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.4
4.7
3.7
1.5
1
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.2
1.6
1.7
0.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
3.1
3.3
3
4.5
4
2
3
3.3
3.6
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.8
3.9
2.2
1.6
0.4
2
1.7
1.6
3.4
4.9
1.8
2.6
4.3
4.2
3.2
3.2
2.3
2.1
1.6
2
1
0.7
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
2
1.5
0.9
0.9
2.1
1.5
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.1
2.9
1.8
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.3
3.8
4.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
1.7
0.8
3.5
2.7
1.2
1.4
3
2.7
3.3
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.6
1.8
2
2.4
2.9
2.2
1.9
3.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
2
3.4
2.5
0.8
0.8
2.8
2.5
3.2
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.6
0.9
0.9
1.6
2.6
1.6
1.3
4
0.6
0.7
1
1.9
0.5
3.2
2.8
1.6
1.9
3.3
2.9
3.7
4.1
4
4.6
4.4
3.6
4.1
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.7
4.3
3.3
2.6
2.7
2.5
0.9
3.2
2.7
1.4
1.6
3
2.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.4
4.3
4
4.2
3.4
4
2.8
2.2
3.5
1.7
0.9
1.9
1.5
0.4
2.1
1.6
0.9
1.3
2.4
1.6
2.2
2.8
2.4
3
2.7
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.1
1.7
4.3
4.5
3.4
3.2
3.7
1.7
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.5
1
0.9
1
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.5
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
3.9
4.9
0.2
2.8
2.4
1.6
1.7
3.4
2.8
3.1
4.1
4.1
4.5
4.3
3
3.2
2.7
3.1
2.5
3.6
4.2
1.6
1.1
1.9
0.9
1
4.4
3.8
1.2
1.2
2.4
2.2
2.9
3.7
3.7
4.3
4
1.6
1.8
2
2.3
1.2
2.6
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.3
1.8
0.2
3
3
2.7
2.9
3.1
3
3.4
3.7
3.2
4
3.5
3.6
4.1
3.3
3.3
2.2
2.5
3.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
0.8
1
3.7
3.8
1.7
1.9
2.1
3.4
4.3
2.5
2.1
3.6
2.9
1.8
4
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.1
3.2
1
1
1.9
1.9
0.7
3.1
2.9
1.3
1.6
2.6
2.5
4.4
3
2.7
4
3.5
2.2
3.9
4.1
4.4
3.4
2.9
3.3
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.4
4.5
3.3
1.7
2.2
2.3
3.1
4.4
3.2
3
4.5
4
2.5
3.8
3.1
3.4
4.4
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.6
Figure 2: Regulating ES map
Figure 1: Provisioning ES map
1
Figure 3: Cultural ES map
Flanders (2) Science Maps
Figure 4: Water retention in Flanders
Figure1 : maximum carbon uptake in Flanders for the
present situation.
Figure 5: Actual average water infiltration based on soil
and land cover.
Figure 2: Water catchment ability in Flanders.
Figure 3: sensitivity to a decreased groundwater level.
Figure 6: Allowed groundwater extraction (from pumps
data)
2
Figure 7: allowed groundwater extraction (from the
infiltration-equivalent method)
Figure 1: Provisioning ES map
Figure 8: Denitrification and drainage zones.
Figure 9: Quantitative appreciation of erosion sensitivity
Wallonia – Quick scan Maps
3
Figure 3: Cultural ES map
Figure 2: Regulating ES map
Figure 4: Summarizing map of ES (including all three
categories with their respective importance
4