IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v20y2016icp15-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A spatially-explicit technique for evaluation of alternative scenarios in the context of ecosystem goods and services

Author

Listed:
  • Teague, A.
  • Russell, M.
  • Harvey, J.
  • Dantin, D.
  • Nestlerode, J.
  • Alvarez, F.

Abstract

Ecosystems contribute to maintaining human well-being directly through provision of goods and indirectly through provision of services that support clean water, clean air, flood protection and atmospheric stability. Transparently accounting for biophysical attributes from which humans derive benefit is essential to support dialog among the public, resource managers, decision makers, and scientists. We analyzed the potential ecosystem goods and services production from alternative future land use scenarios in the US Tampa Bay region. Ecosystem goods and service metrics included carbon sequestration, nitrogen removal, air pollutant removal, and stormwater retention. Each scenario was compared to a 2006 baseline land use. Estimated production of denitrification services changed by 28% and carbon sequestration by 20% between 2006 and the “business as usual” scenario. An alternative scenario focused on “natural resource protection” resulted in an estimated 9% loss in air pollution removal. Stormwater retention was estimated to change 18% from 2006 to 2060 projections. Cost effective areas for conservation, almost 1588ha, beyond current conservation lands, were identified by comparing ecosystem goods and services production to assessed land values. Our ecosystem goods and services approach provides a simple and quantitative way to examine a more complete set of potential outcomes from land use decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Teague, A. & Russell, M. & Harvey, J. & Dantin, D. & Nestlerode, J. & Alvarez, F., 2016. "A spatially-explicit technique for evaluation of alternative scenarios in the context of ecosystem goods and services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 15-29.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:15-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616301061
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    2. Troy, Austin & Wilson, Matthew A., 2006. "Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 435-449, December.
    3. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    5. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    6. Kaiser, Brooks & Roumasset, James, 2002. "Valuing indirect ecosystem services: the case of tropical watersheds," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 701-714, October.
    7. Barbier, Edward B., 2012. "A spatial model of coastal ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 70-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chunbo Chen & Chi Zhang, 2017. "Projecting the CO 2 and Climatic Change Effects on the Net Primary Productivity of the Urban Ecosystems in Phoenix, AZ in the 21st Century under Multiple RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) Sce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Matthew C. Harwell & Chloe A. Jackson, 2021. "Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    2. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    3. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    4. Saarikoski, Heli & Jax, Kurt & Harrison, Paula A. & Primmer, Eeva & Barton, David N. & Mononen, Laura & Vihervaara, Petteri & Furman, Eeva, 2015. "Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 144-157.
    5. Thiel, Andreas, 2014. "Developing an analytical framework for reconstructing the scalar reorganization of water governance as institutional change: The case of Southern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 378-391.
    6. Booth, Eric G. & Zipper, Samuel C. & Loheide, Steven P. & Kucharik, Christopher J., 2016. "Is groundwater recharge always serving us well? Water supply provisioning, crop production, and flood attenuation in conflict in Wisconsin, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 153-165.
    7. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    8. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Ho¨lzinger, Oliver & Horst, Dan van der & Sadler, Jon, 2014. "City-wide Ecosystem Assessments—Lessons from Birmingham," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 98-105.
    11. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    12. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    13. Potschin-Young, Marion & Czúcz, Balint & Liquete, Camino & Maes, Joachim & Rusch, Graciela M. & Haines-Young, Roy, 2017. "Intermediate ecosystem services: An empty concept?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 124-126.
    14. Jae-hyuck Lee & HaeOk Choi, 2020. "An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, February.
    15. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    16. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    18. Kindler, Elisabeth, 2016. "A comparison of the concepts: Ecosystem services and forest functions to improve interdisciplinary exchange," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 52-59.
    19. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    20. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:15-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.