IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2020i1p21-d470127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • J. Carl Ureta

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Lucas Clay

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Marzieh Motallebi

    (Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Sciences, Clemson University, Georgetown, SC 29440, USA)

  • Joan Ureta

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

Abstract

The increasing pressure from land cover change exacerbates the negative effect on ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES). One approach to inform holistic and sustainable management is to quantify the ES provided by the landscape. Using the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model, this study quantified the sediment retention capacity and water yield potential of different land cover in the Santee River Basin Network in South Carolina, USA. Results showed that vegetated areas provided the highest sediment retention capacity and lowest water yield potential. Also, the simulations demonstrated that keeping the offseason crop areas vegetated by planting cover crops improves the monthly ES provision of the landscape. Retaining the soil within the land area prevents possible contamination and siltation of rivers and streams. On the other hand, low water yield potential translates to low occurrence of surface runoff, which indicates better soil erosion control, regulated soil nutrient absorption and gradual infiltration. The results of this study can be used for landscape sustainability management to assess the possible tradeoffs between ecological conservation and economic development. Furthermore, the generated map of ES can be used to pinpoint the areas where ES are best provided within the landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Carl Ureta & Lucas Clay & Marzieh Motallebi & Joan Ureta, 2020. "Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:21-:d:470127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/21/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/21/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Campbell, Elliott T. & Tilley, David R., 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services from Maryland forests using environmental accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 141-151.
    3. Abram, Nicola K. & Meijaard, Erik & Ancrenaz, Marc & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wells, Jessie A. & Gaveau, David & Pellier, Anne-Sophie & Mengersen, Kerrie, 2014. "Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 116-127.
    4. Yu-Pin Lin & Chi-Ju Chen & Wan-Yu Lien & Wen-Hao Chang & Joy R. Petway & Li-Chi Chiang, 2019. "Landscape Conservation Planning to Sustain Ecosystem Services under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Lucas Clay & Katharine Perkins & Marzieh Motallebi & Alejandro Plastina & Bhupinder Singh Farmaha, 2020. "The Perceived Benefits, Challenges, and Environmental Effects of Cover Crop Implementation in South Carolina," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    6. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    7. Kreuter, Urs P. & Harris, Heather G. & Matlock, Marty D. & Lacey, Ronald E., 2001. "Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 333-346, December.
    8. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara & Ringhofer, Lisa, 2016. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 24-32.
    9. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    10. Cameron M. Pittelkow & Xinqiang Liang & Bruce A. Linquist & Kees Jan van Groenigen & Juhwan Lee & Mark E. Lundy & Natasja van Gestel & Johan Six & Rodney T. Venterea & Chris van Kessel, 2015. "Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7534), pages 365-368, January.
    11. Gabriel, José Luis & Garrido, Alberto & Quemada, Miguel, 2013. "Cover crops effect on farm benefits and nitrate leaching: Linking economic and environmental analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    12. Fauzi, Akhmad & Anna, Zuzy, 2013. "The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 54-63.
    13. Suxiao Li & Hong Yang & Martin Lacayo & Junguo Liu & Guangchun Lei, 2018. "Impacts of Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes on Water Yield: A Case Study in Jing-Jin-Ji, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, March.
    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. Ureta, J. Carl & Motallebi, Marzieh & Vassalos, Michael & Seagle, Steven & Baldwin, Robert, 2022. "Estimating residents' WTP for ecosystem services improvement in a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    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. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    3. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.
    4. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    5. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    6. 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.
    7. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    8. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Hong-Zhen Zhang & Ling-Yun He & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2023. "Can Transverse Eco-compensation Mechanism Correct Resource Misallocation in Watershed Environmental Governance? A Cost-benefit Analysis of the Pilot Project of Xin’an River in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 947-973, April.
    10. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    11. Jones, Kelly W. & Avila Foucat, Sophie & Pischke, Erin C. & Salcone, Jacob & Torrez, David & Selfa, Theresa & Halvorsen, Kathleen E., 2019. "Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 32-42.
    12. Lucas Clay & Katharine Perkins & Marzieh Motallebi & Alejandro Plastina & Bhupinder Singh Farmaha, 2020. "The Perceived Benefits, Challenges, and Environmental Effects of Cover Crop Implementation in South Carolina," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    14. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    15. Jones, Kelly W. & Mayer, Alex & Von Thaden, Juan & Berry, Z. Carter & López-Ramírez, Sergio & Salcone, Jacob & Manson, Robert H. & Asbjornsen, Heidi, 2020. "Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Laxmi Dutt Bhatta & Arati Khadgi & Rajesh Kumar Rai & Bikram Tamang & Kiran Timalsina & Shahriar Wahid, 2018. "Designing community-based payment scheme for ecosystem services: a case from Koshi Hills, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1831-1848, August.
    17. Bottazzi, Patrick & Wiik, Emma & Crespo, David & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "Payment for Environmental “Self-Service”: Exploring the Links Between Farmers' Motivation and Additionality in a Conservation Incentive Programme in the Bolivian Andes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 11-23.
    18. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Meyer, Claas & König, Hannes & Zhen, Lin, 2018. "How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental PES: China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," SocArXiv jzvqh, Center for Open Science.
    19. Shengli Dai & Weimin Zhang & Linshan Lan, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of China’s Ecological Protection Compensation Policy Based on PMC Index Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-24, August.
    20. Carter Berry, Z. & Jones, Kelly W. & Gomez Aguilar, Leon Rodrigo & Congalton, Russell G. & Holwerda, Friso & Kolka, Randall & Looker, Nathaniel & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio Miguel & Manson, Robert & Mayer,, 2020. "Evaluating ecosystem service trade-offs along a land-use intensification gradient in central Veracruz, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:21-:d:470127. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.