Evaluating opportunities to enhance ecosystem services in public use areas

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 7, Issue , 2014, Pages 167-176

  Villamagna, Amy M ^a,b   Angermeier, Paul L ^b   Niazi, Nicholas ^c  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation intent; Cultural services; Ecosystem service capacity; Public use areas; Regulating services

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894809336     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bagstad K., Johnson G., Voigt B., Villa F. Spatial dyanamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:117-125.
2. Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D., Gordon L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 2009, 12:1394-1404.
3. Borin M., Vianello M., Morari F., Zanin G. Effectiveness of buffer strips in removing pollutants in runoff from a cultivated field in North-East Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2005, 105:101-114.
4. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:616-626.
5. Chan K.M.A., Shaw M.R., Cameron D.R., Underwood E.C., Daily G.C. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology 2006, 4:2138-2152.
6. Chan K.M.A., Satterfield T., Goldstein J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 2012, 74:8-18.
7. Correll D.L. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecological Engineering 2005, 24:433-439.
8. Daily, G.E., 1997. Nature's Services - Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.
9. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7, 260-272.
10. Duncan, A., Wagner, S., Scoggins, M. 2012. City of Austin Riparian Zone Restoration Site Prioritization. SR 12-13. City of Austin Watershed Protection Department, Environmental Resource Management Division. Available from: http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Watershed/riparian/SR-12-13-Riparian-Restoration-Prioritization-Methodology.pdf (accessed 12.08.13).
11. Eigenbrod F., Armsworth P.R., Anderson B.J., Heinemeyer A., Gillings S., Roy D.B., Thomas C.D., Gaston K.J. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47:377-385.
12. Fennessy M.S., Cronk J.K. The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 1997, 27:285-317.
13. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:643-653.
14. Ingraham M.W., Foster S.G. The value of ecosystem services provided by the US National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous US. Ecological Economics 2008, 67:608-618.
15. Kareiva P., Tallis H., Ricketts T., Daily G., Polasky S. Mainstreaming natural capital into decisions; assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real world; Provisioning and regulatory ecosystem service values in agriculture. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, 34-48:3-12. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
16. Liu X.M., Mang X.Y., Zhang M.H. Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: a review and analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality 2008, 37:1667-1674.
17. Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 2012, 7(6):e38970.
18. Mayer P.M., Reynolds S.K., McCutchen M.D., Canfield T.J. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 2007, 36:1172-1180.
19. Mayer P.M., Reynolds S.K., McCutchen M.D., Canfield T.J. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations 2005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
20. McKerrow, A.J., Williams, S.G., Collazo, J.A., 2006. A North Carolina Gap Analysis Project. In: North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, NCSU (Ed.), Raleigh, NC, p. xiv+110 pp.+appendices.
21. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Our Human Planet, Summary for Decision Makers 2005, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Island Press, Washington, DC.
22. Misra A.K., Baker J.L., Mickelson S.K., Shang H. Contributing area and concentration effects on herbicide removal by vegetative buffer strips. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1996, 39:2105-2111.
23. Muscutt A.D., Harris G.L., Bailey S.W., Davies D.B. Buffer zones to improve water-quality-a review of their potential use in UK agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 1993, 45:59-77.
24. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2004. Guidelines for riparian buffer restoration. NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Available from: www.nceep.net/news/reports/buffers.pdf (accessed 12.08.13).
25. Plummer M.L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7:38-45.
26. Rashleigh B., Keith D., Williams D., Mangis D., Schwede D., Worthy I., Iiames J., Pugh K., Mccutcheon S. Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) Albemarle-Pamlico Watershed and Estuary Study (APWES) Research Plan 2010, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
27. Raudsepp-Hearne C., Peterson G.D., Bennett E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010, 107:5242-5247.
28. Smith T., Osmond D., Moorman C., Stucky J., Gilliam G. Effect of Vegetation management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 2008, 7:277-288.
29. Spruill T.B., Harned D.A., Ruhl P.M., Eimers J.L., McMahon Gerard, Smith K.E., Galeone D.R., Woodside M.D. Water Quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage basin, North Carolina and Virginia, 1992-95. US Geological Survey Circular 1998, 1157:36.
30. Tallis H., Polasky S. Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real world. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, 34-48. Oxford University Press, Oxford. G.C. Daily, P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. Ricketts, S. Polasky (Eds.).
31. The Nature Conservancy, 2012. Our Science Ecosystem Services: Measuring the Value of Nature. Available from: http://www.nature.org/ourscience/ecosystem-services.xml (accessed 14.09.12).
32. Villamagna A.M., Angermeier P.L., Bennett E.M. Capacity, demand, pressure, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity 2013, 15:114-121.
33. Wenger S. Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation 1999, Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
34. Wenny D.G., DeVault T.L., Johnson M.D., Kelly D., Sekercioglu C.H., Tomback D.F., Whelan C.J. The need to quantify ecosystem services provided by birds. Auk 2011, 128:1-14.
35. World Wildlife Fund, 2012. Available from: http://worldwildlife.org/initiatives/science-setting-the-standard-for-sound-conservation (accessed 14.09.12).