The concept of ecosystem service (ES) was originally developed to illustrate the benefits that natural ecosystems generate for society and to raise awareness for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. In recent years, geographical information systems (GIS) have become a powerful tool for mapping (ES) within a landscape, which visualizes spatial and temporal patterns and changes in ecosystems and their services. Mapping (ES) is necessary for the progress of strategies that will guarantee their future supply and to support the policies in a more effective way. The comprehensive literature review was conducted using international databases such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Google Scholar. We used key terms including 'mapping','maps’, ‘ES or ecosystem service, ‘ecosystem functions’, ‘landscape functions’, ‘evaluation of ES’, and ‘assessment of services’. To identify mapping ecosystem services and their challenges and opportunities. In total, 65 research papers were found first, of which 34 were selected for review. The most important challenges are insufficient generation of ES in the context of managed systems, the need to estimate associations among indicators of (ES) incomplete understanding of the nature of associations among services, and the lack of a general numerical outline to address these relations.

The spatial variation of forest ecosystem services at regional scales remains poorly understood, and few studies have explicitly analyzed how ecosystem services are distributed across different forest management types. This study assessed the spatial overlap between forest management types and ecosystem service hotspots in the Southeastern United States (SEUS) and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) forests. We used the InVEST suite of tools and GIS to quantify carbon storage and water yield. Carbon storage was estimated, stratified by forest group and age class, and literature-based biomass pool values were applied. Average annual water yield and its temporal changes (2001–2020) were modeled using the annual water yield model, incorporating precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, vegetation type, and soil characteristics. Ecosystem service outputs were classified to identify hotspot zones (top 20%) and to evaluate the synergies and tradeoffs between these services. Hotspots were then overlaid with forest management maps to examine their distribution across management types. We found that only 2% of the SEUS and 11% of the PNW region were simultaneous hotspots for both services. In the SEUS, ecological and preservation forest management types showed higher efficiency in hotspot allocation, while in PNW, production forestry contributed relatively more to hotspot areas. These findings offer valuable insights for decision-makers and forest managers seeking to preserve the multiple benefits that forests provide at regional scales.