IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v44y2017i5p884-902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An approach to maintaining hydrological networks in the face of land use change

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Cuthbert
  • Mary-Ellen Tyler

Abstract

Ephemeral drainage patterns in the prairie pothole region of southern Alberta are not well understood at the landscape level. Municipal land use planning generally places very few constraints on development, which can leave the existing landscape topography and drainage patterns highly modified and engineered. Few if any features that exist within the pre-development landscape remain post-development. Part of the residential or industrial land development process is the creation of master drainage plans which focus on collecting and moving precipitation or snow melt away from roads and buildings through drainage ponds and piping systems. However, in prairie pothole landscapes, there is a landscape hydrology system that connects wetlands and sub-surface soil moisture flows and involves significant ephemeral components. These existing landscape flow systems provide ecosystem services in both flood and drought conditions. However, conventional land conversion processes do not generally recognize existing landscape processes like hydraulic connectivity in the development process. This creates a gap between the standard engineering approach and landscape structure and function which puts landscape processes and services at risk of being lost over time. The method demonstrated in this paper has been designed to bridge pre-development and post-development conditions for hydrologic flow systems. This method can be used as an additional cross-scalar information “layer†for use in the planning process to identify how utilities, roads and building sites can be spatially organized to complement rather than conflict with existing landscape flow systems in areas with minimal topographic relief and specifically in Prairie Pothole Region landscapes. This relatively simple technique can help reduce infrastructure costs and enables development to maintain natural flow systems and cross-scalar hydraulic connectivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Cuthbert & Mary-Ellen Tyler, 2017. "An approach to maintaining hydrological networks in the face of land use change," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(5), pages 884-902, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:884-902
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813516654473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813516654473
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813516654473?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    2. Benjamin S. Rashford & Christopher T. Bastian & Jeffrey G. Cole, 2011. "Agricultural Land‐Use Change in Prairie Canada: Implications for Wetland and Waterfowl Habitat Conservation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 185-205, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Simelton, Elisabeth & Viet Dam, Bac, 2014. "Farmers in NE Viet Nam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 133-138.
    3. Everard, Mark & Longhurst, James & Pontin, John & Stephenson, Wendy & Brooks, Joss, 2017. "Developed-developing world partnerships for sustainable development (1): An ecosystem services perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 241-252.
    4. Chian Jones Ritten & Christopher Bastian & Jason F. Shogren & Thadchaigeni Panchalingam & Mariah D. Ehmke & Gregory Parkhurst, 2017. "Understanding Pollinator Habitat Conservation under Current Policy Using Economic Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Tania Pinto & Telmo Machado & Diana Nicolau & Nuno Gaspar Oliveira & Ana Sofia Vaz, 2024. "Accounting for nature contributions to people in corporate sustainability: The case of a waste management company in Portugal," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2619-2628, July.
    7. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    9. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    10. 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.
    11. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    12. Sun, Ranhao & Chen, Liding, 2017. "Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 38-46.
    13. Bojie Wang & Haiping Tang & Qin Zhang & Fengqi Cui, 2020. "Exploring Connections among Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Human Well-Being in a Mountain-Basin System, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    16. Salisu Barau, Aliyu & Stringer, Lindsay C., 2015. "Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia's Pulau Kukup Ramsar Site," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 167-173.
    17. 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.
    18. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    19. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Mauerhofer, V. & Laza, I., 2018. "How do ecosystem services perform in enforceable law? Potentials and pitfalls within regional and national integration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 260-270.

    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:sae:envirb:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:884-902. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.