Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 5, Issue , 2013, Pages 40-50

  Bagstad, Kenneth J ^a   Semmens, Darius J ^a   Winthrop, Robert ^b  

^a DENVER FEDERAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES); Ecosystem services; Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST); Modeling; Riparian; Semiarid

Indexed keywords

PROSOPIS;

EID: 84884590260     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arnold J.G., Fohrer N. SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrological Processes 2005, 19(3):563-572.
2. Bagstad, K.J., Villa, F., Johnson, G., Voigt, B., 2011. ARIES-Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A Guide to Models and Data, Version 1.0 Beta. The ARIES Consortium, Bilbao, Spain. Retrieved November 27, 2012 from. http://www.ariesonline.org/toolkit.html.
3. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D., Winthrop, R., Jaworski, D., Larson, J., 2012. Ecosystem Services Valuation to Support Decision Making on Public Lands: A Case Study for the San Pedro River, Arizona. Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5251. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
4. Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., Villa, F., 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117-125.
5. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, this volume.
6. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:616-626.
7. Boyd, J., Krupnick, A., 2009. The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 09-35. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
8. Braat L.C., de Groot R. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 2012, 1:4-15.
9. Brookshire D.S., Goodrich D., Dixon M.D., Brand L.A., Benedict K., Lansey K., Thacher J., Broadbent C.D., Stewart S., McIntosh M., Kang D. After restoration: a framework for preserving semi-arid regions in the Southwest. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 2010, 144:60-74.
10. Brunner, G.W., 2010. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 4.1, CPD-69. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA.
11. Burchell R.W., Downs A., McCann B., Mukherji S. Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
12. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1. U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
13. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. FES 12-24, DOE/EIS-0403. U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
14. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Mooney H.A., Pejchar L., Ricketts T.H., Salzman J., Shallenberger R. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):21-28.
15. Elston D.A. Sensitivity analysis in the presence of correlated parameter estimates. Ecological Modelling 1992, 64:11-22.
16. Johnson G.W., Bagstad K.J., Snapp R., Villa F. Service Path Attribution Networks (SPANs): a network flow approach to ecosystem service assessment. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems 2012, 3(2):54-71.
17. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
18. Kennedy J.R., Goodrich D.C., Unkrich C.L. Using the KINEROS2 modeling framework to evaluate the increase in storm runoff from residential development in a semiarid environment. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 2013, 18(6):698-706.
19. Kepner, W.G., Semmens, D.J., Heggem, D.T., Evanson, E.J., Edmonds, C.M., Scott, S.N., 2003. The San Pedro River Geo-data Browser and Assessment Tools. EPA/600/C-03/008. Retrieved November 30, 2012 from. http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-sci/san_pedro/index.html.
20. Kroll F., Muller F., Haase D., Fohrer N. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:521-535.
21. Mac Nish R., Baird K.J., Maddock T. Groundwater hydrology of the San Pedro River Basin. Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River 2009, 285-299. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. J.C. Stromberg, B. Tellman (Eds.).
22. Mendoza G., Ennaanay D., Conte M., Walter M.T., Freyberg D., Wolny S., Hay L., White S., Nelson E., Solorzano L. Water supply as an ecosystem service for hydropower and irrigation. Natural Capital-Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, 53-72. Oxford University Press, Oxford. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
23. Moran M.S., Emmerich W.E., Goodrich D.C., Heilman P., Holifield Collins D., Keefer T.O., Nearing M.A., Nichols M.H., Renard K.G., Scott R.L., Smith J.R., et al. Preface to special section on fifty years of research and data collection: U.S. Department of Agriculture Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed. Water Resources Research 2008, 44:W05S01.
24. Moran M.S., Scott R.L., Keefer T.O., Emmerich W.E., Hernandez M., Nearing G.S., Paige G.B., Cosh M.H., O'Neill P.E. Partitioning evapotranspiration in semiarid grassland and shrubland ecosystems using time series of soil surface temperature. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2009, 149:59-72.
25. Nahlik A.M., Kentula M.E., Fennessy M.S., Landers D.H. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Economics 2012, 77:27-35.
26. Nelson E.J., Daily G.C. Modeling ecosystem services in terrestrial ecosystems. Faculty of 1000 Biology Reports 2010, 2:53.
27. Nie W., Yuan T., Kepner W., Erickson C., Jackson M. Hydrological impacts of mesquite encroachment in the Upper San Pedro watershed. Journal of Arid Environments 2012, 82:147-155.
28. Nijssen B.N., Lettenmaier D.P., Liang X., Wetzel S.W., Wood E.F. Streamflow simulation for continental-scale river basins. Water Resources Research 1997, 33:711-724.
29. Norman L.M., Villareal M.L., Lara-Valencia F., Yuan Y., Nie W., Wilson S., Amaya G., Sleeter R. Mapping socio-environmentally vulnerable populations access and exposure to ecosystem services at the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Applied Geography 2012, 34:413-424.
30. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report to the President: Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy 2011, Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington, DC.
31. Ruhl J.B., Kraft S.E., Lant C.L. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services 2007, Island Press, Washington, DC.
32. Semmens D.J., Goodrich D.C., Unkrich C.L., Smith R.E., Woolhiser D.A., Miller S.N. KINEROS2 and the AGWA modeling framework. Hydrological Modelling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas 2008, Cambridge University Press, New York, (206 pp). H. Wheater, S. Sorooshian, K.D. Sharma (Eds.).
33. Steinitz C., Arias H., Bassett S., Flaxman M., Goode T., Maddock T., Mouat D., Peiser R., Shearer A. Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora 2003, Island Press, Washington, DC.
34. 2009, Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. J.C. Stromberg, B. Tellman (Eds.).
35. Syrbe R., Walz U. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting, and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 2012, 21:80-88.
36. Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhartdt, J., Griffin, R., 2013. InVEST 2.5.3 User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA.
37. Vigerstol K.L., Aukema J.E. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92:2403-2409.
38. Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Johnson G., Voigt B. Scientific instruments for climate change adaptation: estimating and optimizing the efficiency of ecosystem services provision. Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales 2011, 11(1):83-98.
39. Waage, S., Armstrong, K., Hwang, L., 2011. New Business Decision Making Aids in An Era of Complexity, Scrutiny, and Uncertainty: Tools for Identifying, Assessing, and Valuing Ecosystem Services, BSR, San Francisco, California. Available from:(accessed 23.05.13). http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_ESTM_WG_Comp_ES_Tools_Synthesis3.pdf.
40. Zhu, Z., Bergamaschi, B., Bernknopf, R., Clow, D., Dye, D., Faulkner, S., Forney, W., Gleason, R., Hawbaker, T., Liu, J., Lui, S., Prisley, S., Reed, B., Reeves, M., Rollins, M., Sleeter, B., Sohl, T., Stackpoole, S., Stehman, S., Striegl, R., Wein, A., Zhu, Z., 2010. A Method for Assessing Carbon Stocks, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse-gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the United States under Present Conditions and Future Scenarios. Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5233. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.