Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Bagstad, Kenneth J.; Johnson, Gary W.; Voigt, Brian; Villa, Ferdinando

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012

Cited by 453 publications

(336 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

279

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These models attempt to link ecosystem structure and function to the water resource goods and services provided by the ecosystem. Models to assess HESs have been developed by groups including the Natural Capital Project [the InVEST model suite; Tallis and Polasky, 2009], the ARIES project [Bagstad et al, 2013], and LUCI [Jackson et al, 2013], while INFFER [Pannell et al, 2012] uses an expert elicitation approach to estimate the biophysical production of HESs. All of these groups work to increase the use of ecosystem service (ES) approaches in land management and water resources decisions by making it easy to include them in the decision process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is true despite the use of such models in making real decisions and investments [Goldman et al, 2010]. Vigerstol and Aukema [2011] compared the inputs and outputs of SWAT [Arnold et al, 1998], InVEST [Tallis and Polasky, 2009], the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) model [Bagstad et al, 2013], and the Variable Infiltration…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these comparisons have been performed at scales larger than those at which most management or investment decisions are made, making them less useful for real-world application. The ARIES hydrologic models have been assessed theoretically but have not been compared with more sophisticated models [Bagstad et al, 2013]. The LUCI models have been developed at smaller scales, and have been applied in the Pontbren Catchment in Wales [Jackson et al, 2013], but have not been applied broadly or in the developing world contexts where such investments may be the most important.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Dennedy‐Frank

Muenich

Chaubey

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comparison of two ecohydrologic models commonly used for planning land management to assess the production of hydrologic ecosystem services: the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) annual water yield model. We compare these two models at two distinct sites in the US: the Wildcat Creek Watershed in Indiana and the Upper Upatoi Creek Watershed in Georgia. The InVEST and SWAT models provide similar estimates of the spatial distribution of water yield in Wildcat Creek, but very different estimates of the spatial distribution of water yield in Upper Upatoi Creek. The InVEST model may do a poor job estimating the spatial distribution of water yield in the Upper Upatoi Creek W total water yield, which means that storage dynamics which are not modeled by InVEST may be important. We also compare the ability of these two models, as well as one newly developed set of ecosystem service indices, to deliver useful guidance for land management decisions focused on providing hydrologic ecosystem services in three particular decision contexts: environmental flow ecosystem services, ecosystem services for potable water supply, and ecosystem services for rainfed irrigation. We present a simple framework for selecting models or indices to evaluate hydrologic ecosystem services as a way to formalize where models deliver useful guidance. KEYWORDS:ecosystem services, water yield, model comparison, SWAT, InVEST INTRODUCTIONHydrologic ecosystem services (HESs) are beginning to influence land management decisions through both regulations and investments targeted at protecting and improving water resources [Le Maitre et al., 2007;Gordon et al., 2010;Goldman-Benner et al., 2012]. HESs are the goods and services that ecosystems provide to people related to various uses of water, and include water availability for municipal, agricultural, and commercial use, the reduction of the magnitude and frequency of flow peaks to prevent floods, the reduction of sediment and nutrients in water, and the value of natural hydrologic systems for recreation [Brauman et al., 2007; Keeler et al., 2012;Brauman, 2015]. Land managers use HESs to support investments and meet regulatory requirements around water resources in both developing countries [Goldman, 2009] and developed countries [Lautenbach et al., 2010;Logsdon and Chaubey, 2013]. To support investments or meet regulations, scientists and managers assess HESs under expected future conditions based on some model of the landscape and ecosystem response; the landscapes are then managed to restore, retain, or optimize HESs and thus improve the status of the water resources. Scientists and managers assess HES provision in distinct decision contexts-combinations of investment and regulatory goals and institutional structures-which may decide both which models are applied and how model outputs are used to make decisions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Dennedy‐Frank

Muenich

Chaubey

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Attention has been recently given to the scale of ES provision, the location of beneficiaries, and the flows of ES from ecosystems to humans, which are particularly relevant for spatially-confined ES (Locatelli et al 2011b;Bagstad et al 2013;Luck et al 2012;Schröter et al 2012). For example, Wendland et al (2010) considered the location of beneficiaries of water ES in Madagascar, as well as directional water flows in landscapes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica

Locatelli

Imbach

Wunder³

2013

Envir. Conserv.

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental Conservation 41 (1): 27-36 C Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013. The online version of this article is published within an open access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence . The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. doi:10.1017/S0376892913000234 Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica

show abstract

“…Qualitative and quantitative assessment methods have been combined by Kopperoinen et al (2014) in a new method to consider ES in land use planning. Bagstad et al (2013a) present an approach to quantify the flow of services between ecosystems and their beneficiaries. Several policy processes drive and motivate the development of an integrated modelling framework on ES.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ESLab application to a boreal watershed in southern Finland: preparing for a virtual research environment of ecosystem services

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on preparatory work to develop a virtual laboratory for ecosystem services, ESLab, and demonstrate its pilot application in southern Finland. The themes included in the pilot are related to biodiversity conservation, climate mitigation and eutrophication mitigation. ESLab is a research environment for ecosystem services (ES), which considers ES indicators at different landscape scales: habitats, catchments and municipalities and shares the results by a service that utilizes machine readable interfaces. The study area of the pilot application is situated in the boreal region of southern Finland and covers 14 municipalities and ten catchments including forested, agricultural and nature conservation areas. We present case studies including: present carbon budgets of natural ecosystems; future carbon budgets with and without the removal of harvest residues for bioenergy production; and total phosphorus and nitrogen future loads under climate and agricultural yield and price scenarios. The ESLab allows researchers to present and share the results as visual maps, statistics and graphs. Our further aim is to provide a toolbox of easily accessible virtual services for ES researchers, to illustrate the comprehensive societal consequences of multiple decisions (e.g. concerning land use, fertilisation or harvesting) in a changing environment (climate, deposition).

show abstract

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Cited by 453 publications

References 19 publications

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica

ESLab application to a boreal watershed in southern Finland: preparing for a virtual research environment of ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About