Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 25-35

  Geneletti, Davide ^a,b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Scenario analysis; Spatial planning; Strategic environmental assessment; Trade offs

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; LAND USE; SOIL CONSERVATION; ZONING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; CARBON;

CARBON SEQUESTRATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LAND-USE DECISIONS; SCENARIO ANALYSIS; SPATIAL CONFIGURATION; SPATIAL PLANNING; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS; WATER PURIFICATION; TRADE OFF;

ECOSYSTEMS;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING; FUTURE PROSPECT; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LAND USE CHANGE; SPATIAL PLANNING; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; TRADE-OFF; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; STRATEGIC APPROACH; ZONING POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; ZONATION;

ARAUCANIA; CHILE;

EID: 84902122515     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Acosta-Jamett G, Simonetti J, Bustamante R, Dunstone N. Metapopulation approach to assess survival of Oncifelis guigna in fragmented forests of central Chile: a theoretical model. J Neotrop Mammal 2003;10:217-29.
2. Aldrich JH, Nelson FD. Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Sage University Paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage 1984.
3. Balmford A, Rodrigues A, Walpole M, ten Brink P, Kettunen M, Braat L, et al. Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: scoping the science. European Commission; 2008 (Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/scoping_science.pdf).
4. Bell E. Markov analysis of land use change - an application of stochastic processes to remotely sensed data. Socio Econ Plan Sci 1974;8(6):311-6.
5. Birch JC, Newton AC, Aquino CA, Cantarello E, Echeverría C, Kitzberger T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107(50):21925-30.
6. Bragagnolo C, Geneletti D. Dealing with land use decisions in uncertain contexts. A method to support Strategic Environmental Assessment of spatial plans. J Environ Plann Manage in press.
7. Bragagnolo C, Geneletti D, Fischer TB. Cumulative effects in SEA of spatial plans- evidence from Italy and England. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2012;30(2):100-10.
8. Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 2006;11(1).
9. Clark WA, Hosking PL. Statistical methods for geographers. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.
10. CONAF, CONAMA, BIRF, Universidad Austral de Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y Universidad Católica de Temuco. Catastro y Evaluación de los Recursos Vegetacionales Nativos de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Informe Nacional con Variables Ambientales; 1999 [88 pp.].
11. Daily GC, Matson PA. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105(28):9455-6.
12. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2004;2(5):249-57.
13. Dunstone N, Durbin L, Wyllie I, Freer R, Jamett GA, Mazzolli M, et al. Spatial organization, ranging behaviour and habitat use of the kodkod (Oncifelis guigna) in southern Chile. J Zool 2002;257(1):1-11.
14. Eastman JR. IDRISI Taiga. Guide to GIS and image processing. Worcester, MA: Clark Labs. Clark University; 2009.
15. Eastman JR, Jin W, Kyem PAK, Toledano J. Raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 1995;61(5):539-47.
16. Echeverria C, Coomes D, Salas J, Rey Benayas J, Lara A, Newton A. Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean Temperate Forests. Biol Conserv 2006;130(4): 481-94.
17. Fischer TB. Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30(1):62-9.
18. Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005;309(5734):570-4.
19. Geneletti D. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manage 2011;7(3):143-9.
20. Geneletti D. Environmental assessment of spatial plan policies through land use scenarios. A study in a fast-developing town in rural Mozambique. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2012;32(1):1-10.
21. Geneletti D, Bagli S, Napolitano P, Pistocchi A. Spatial decision support for strategic environmental assessment of land use plans. A case study in southern Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27(5):408-23.
22. Gobierno de Chile. Catastro de uso del suelo y vegetación. Monitoreo y actualización region de La Araucanía. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Agricultura; 2009.
23. Gontier M, Mörtberg U, Balfors B. Comparing GIS-based habitat models for applications in EIA and SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30(1):8-18.
24. Haynes R. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 1952 to 2050. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-560. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 2003.
25. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 2006;29:773-85.
26. IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme; 2006.
27. Lara A, Little C, Urrutia R, McPhee J, Álvarez-Garretón C, Oyarzún C, et al. Assessment of ecosystem services as an opportunity for the conservation and management of native forests in Chile. Forest Ecol Manage 2009;258(4):415-24.
28. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and human well-being: the assessment series (four volumes and summary). Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
29. Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MD, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schröter D. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ 2006;114(1):69-85.
30. Mideplan (Ministerio de Planificación y Cooperación). Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN). Gobierno de Chile 2009. Available at: http://www.mideplan.gob.cl/casen/
31. Nelson GC, Bennett E, Berhe AA, Cassman K, DeFries R, Dietz T, et al. Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview. Ecol Soc 2006;11(2).
32. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7(1):4-11.
33. Nelson E, Sander H, Hawthorne P, Conte M, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, et al. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS One 2010;5(12):e14327.
34. ODEPA, CIREN. Catastro Frutícola IX Región de la Araucanía. Actualización 2006. Santiago de Chile: Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias y Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales; 2006.
35. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Schapire RE. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modelling. Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on machine learning. Banff, Alberta: ACMPress; 2004. p. 83.
36. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 2006;190:231-59.
37. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D, Johnson KA. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environ Res Econ 2011;48(2):219-42.
38. PRDUyT. Actualización Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano Región de La Araucanía. Laboratorio de Planificación Territorial, Universidad Católica de Temuco; 2005.
39. Rodríguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 2006;11(1).
40. Sanderson J, Sunquist ME, Iriarte AW. Natural history and landscape-use of Guignas (Oncifelis guigna) on Isla Grande de Chiloé, Chile. J Mammal 2002;83(2):608-13.
41. Subdere. Plan Regional de Ordenamiento Territorial. Contenido y procedimiento. Gobierno de Chile, Subsecretaría de Desarrollo Regional y Administrativo; 2010.
42. Tallis H, Polasky S. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1162:265-83.
43. Tallis H, Ricketts T, Guerry A, editors. InVEST 2.1 beta user's guide. Stanford: The Natural Capital Project; 2011.
44. TEEB. TEEB for local and regional policy makers report. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity; 2010 [Available at: http://www.teebweb.org/ForLocalandRegionalPolicy/LocalandRegionalPolicyMakersChapterDrafts/tabid/29433/Default.aspx]
45. van Jaarsveld AS, Biggs R, Scholes RJ, Bohensky E, Reyers B, Lynam T, et al. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005;360(1454):425-41.
46. Wende W, Bond A, Bobylev N, Stratmann L. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2012;32(1): 88-93.
47. Willis MR, Keller AA. A framework for assessing the impact of land use policy on community exposure to air toxics. J Environ Manage 2007;83(2):213-27.
48. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning. Agriculture handbook, 537. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture; 1978.
49. Zhu Z, Bai H, Xu H, Zhu T. An inquiry into the potential of scenario analysis for dealing with uncertainty in strategic environmental assessment in China. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2011;31(6):538-48.