Assessment of freshwater ecosystem services in the tualatin and Yamhill basins under climate change and urbanization

Applied Geography

Volumn 53, Issue , 2014, Pages 402-416

  Hoyer, Robert ^a   Chang, Heejun ^a  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate change; Freshwater ecosystem services; InVEST; Riparian restoration; Scenario analysis; Urbanization

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM; LAND MANAGEMENT; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIPARIAN ZONE; SERVICE PROVISION; TRADE-OFF; URBANIZATION; WATER QUALITY;

OREGON; TUALATIN BASIN; UNITED STATES; YAMHILL BASIN;

EID: 84905251538     PISSN: 01436228     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.023     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Abatzoglou J.T. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. International Journal of Climatology 2013, 33:121-131. 10.1002/joc.3413.
2. Abatzoglou J.T., Brown T.J. Acomparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. International Journal of Climatology 2012, 32:772-780. 10.1002/joc.2312.
3. Arnold J.G., Moriasi D.N., Gassman P.W., Abbaspour K.C., White M.J., Srinivasan R., et al. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 2012, 55(4):1491-1508.
4. Bagstad K.J., Semmens D.J., Waage S., Winthrop R. Acomparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services 2013, 5:27-39. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004.
5. Bagstad K.J., Semmens D.J., Winthrop R. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services 2013, 5:40-50. 10.1016/j.ecoser.07.007.
6. Bateman I.J., Harwood A.R., Mace G.M., Watson R.T., Abson D.J., Andrew B., et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341(6141):45-50. 10.1126/science.1234379.
7. Beguería S., Vicente-Serrano S.M. SPEI: Calculation of the standardized precipitation-evapotranspiration index 2013, R package version 1.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SPEI.
8. Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D., Gordon L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 2009, 12:1394-1404. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.
9. Boeder M., Chang H. Multi-scale analysis of oxygen demand trends in an urbanizing Oregon watershed. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 87:567-581. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.009.
10. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2007, 32:67-98. 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758.
11. Budyko M.I. Climate and life 1974, Academic Press, New York.
12. Burkhard B., de Groot R., Costanza R., Seppelt R., Jørgensen S.E., Potschin M. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 2012, 21:1-6. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008.
13. Burkhard B., Crossman N., Nedkov S., Petz K., Alkemade R. Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:1-3. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005.
14. Castillo C.R., Güneralp I., Güneralp B. Influence of changes in developed land and precipitation on hydrology of a coastal Texas watershed. Applied Geography 2014, 47:154-167. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.12.009.
15. 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. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379.
16. Chang H. Water quality impacts of climate and land use changes in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Professional Geographer 2004, 56(2):240-257. 10.1111/j.0033-0124.2004.05602008.x.
17. Chang H., Jung I.-W. Spatial and temporal changes in runoff caused by climate change in a complex large river basin in Oregon. Journal of Hydrology 2010, 388(3-4):186-207. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.04.040.
18. Chang H., Lawler K. Impacts of climate variability and change on water temperature in an urbanizing Oregon basin. Water quality: Current trends and expected climate impacts 2011, 123-128. IAHS Publication 348, Oxfordshire. N.E. Peters, V. Krysanova, A. Lepisto, R. Prasad, M.C. Thoms, R. Wilby, S. Zandaryaa (Eds.).
19. Cochran B., Logue C. Awatershed approach to improve water quality: a case study of Clean Water Services' Tualatin River program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2011, 47(1):29-38. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.0049.x.
20. Costanza R., D'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
21. Crossman N.D., Burkhard B., Nedkov S., Willemen L., Petz K., Palomo I., et al. Ablueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:4-14. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001.
22. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems 1997, Island Press, Washington D.C. G.C. Daily (Ed.).
23. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Mooney H.A., Pejchar L., et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):21-28. 10.1890/080025.
24. Eade J.D.O., Moran D. Spatial economic valuation: benefits transfer using geographic information systems. Journal of Environmental Management 1996, 4:91-110. 10.1006/jema.1996.9990.
25. Eigenbrod F., Bell V.A., Davies H.N., Heinemeyer A., Armsworth P.R., Gaston K.J. The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278(1722):3201-3208. 10.1098/rspb.2010.2754.
26. Egoh B., Reyers B., Rouget M., Richardson D., Lemaitre D., van Jaarsveld A.S. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2008, 127:135-140. 10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013.
27. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:663-674. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011.
28. ESRI (Environmental Science Research Institute) ArcGIS 10.1 2012, Redlands, CA, U.S.A.
29. Estoque R.C., Murayama Y. Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city, the Philippines: a scenario-based analysis. Applied Geography 2012, 35(1-2):316-326. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.08.006.
30. Franzcyk J., Chang H. The effects of climate change and urbanization on the runoff of the Rock Creek basin in the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon, USA. Hydrological Processes 2009, 23:805-815. 10.1002/hyp.7176.
31. Fry J., Xian G., Jin S., Dewitz J., Homer C., Yang L., et al. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 2011, 77(9):858-864.
32. Goldstein J.H., Caldarone G., Duarte T.K., Ennaanay D., Hannahs N., Mendoza G., et al. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2012, 109(19):7565-7570. 10.1073/pnas.1201040109.
33. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M. Atypology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 2002, 41(3):393-408. 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
34. Hou Y., Burkhard B., Müller F. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 2013, 127:S117-S131. 10.1016/j.envman.2012.12.002.
35. Hoyer R.W., Chang H. Development of Future Land Cover Change Scenarios in the Metropolitan Fringe, Oregon, U.S., with Stakeholder Involvement. Land 2014, 3(1):322-342. doi:10.3390{set minus}land3010322.
36. Jack B.K., Kousky C., Sims K.R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105(28):9465-9470. 10.1073/pnas.0705503104.
37. Johnes P.J. Evaluation and management of the impact of land use change on the nitrogen and phosphorus load delivered to surface waters: the export coefficient modelling approach. Journal of Hydrology 1996, 183:323-349. 10.1016/0022-1694(95)02951-6.
38. Johnson K.A., Polasky S., Nelson E., Pennington D. Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implication for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River basin. Ecological Economics 2012, 79:71-79. doi:10.106/j.ecolecon.2012.04.020.
39. Natural capital: Theory & practice of mapping ecosystem services 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
40. Kelly V.J., Lynch D.D., Rounds S.A. Sources and transport of phosphorus and nitrogen during low-flow conditions in the Tualatin River, Oregon, 1991-1993 1999, (United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2465-C). http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2465C.
41. Lautenbach S., Kegel C., Lausch A., Seppelt R. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecological Indicators 2011, 11:676-687. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007.
42. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystems and human well-being 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
43. Martin-Ortega J., Ojea E., Roux C. Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosystem Services 2013, 6:122-132. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.008.
44. Martínez-Harms M.J., Balvanera P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2012, 8(1-2):17-25. 10.1080/21513732.2012.663792.
45. Naidoo R., Ricketts T.H. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 2006, 4(11):e360. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360.
46. Nearing M.A. Potential changes in rainfall erosivity in the U.S. with climate change during the 21st century. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2001, 56(3):229-232.
47. Nelson E., Mendoza G., Regetz J., Polasky S., Tallis H., Richard D., et al. Modeling ecosystems services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):4-11. 10.1890/080023.
48. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone0014327.
49. Netusil N., Kincaid M., Chang H. Valuing water quality in urban watersheds: a comparative analysis of Johnson Creek, Oregon and Burnt Bridge Creek, Washington. Water Resources Research 2014, 10.1002/2013WR014546.
50. ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) Willamette Basin TMDL: Chapter 1: Overview 2006, Retrieved from, Accessed 04.11.13. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/willamette/chpt1overview.pdf.
51. ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) Tualatin subbasin total maximum daily load and water quality management plan: Chapter 1 - Overview and background 2012, Retrieved from, Accessed 03.03.13. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/tualatin/revision/Ch0CoverExecSummary.pdf.
52. Patel M., Kok K., Rothman D.S. Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: an insight in the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:546-561. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.02.005.
53. Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S., Carpenter S.R. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 2003, 17(2):366-385. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x.
54. Polasky S., Nelson E., Pennington D., Johnson K.A. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental Resource Economics 2011, 48:219-242. 10.1007/s10640-010-9407-0.
55. Portman M.E. Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes - a critical review. Applied Geography 2013, 45:185-192. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.011.
56. Postschin M.B., Haines-Young R. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography 2011, 35(5):575-594. 10.1177/0309133311423172.
57. Praskievicz S., Chang H. Impacts of climate change and urban development on water resources in the Tualatin River basin, Oregon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2011, 101(2):249-271. 10.1080/00045608.2010.544934.
58. Qiu J., Turner M.G. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2013, 110(29):12149-12154. 10.1073/pnas.1310539110.
59. R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2013, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http -www.R-project.org/.
60. Raudsepp-Hearne C., Peterson G.D., Bennet 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(11):5242-5247. 10.1073/pnas.9097284107.
61. Reckhow K.H., Beaulac M.N., Simpson J.T. Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients 1980, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=00001KWE.PDF.
62. Renard K.G., Freimund J.R. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R factor in the revised USLE. Journal of Hydrology 1994, 157:287-306. 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90110-4.
63. Renard K.G., Foster G.R., Weesies G.A., McCool D.K., Yoder D.C. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) 1997, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 703). http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ruslech2.pdf.
64. Ruckelshaus M., McKenzie E., Tallis H., Guerry A., Daily G., Kareiva P., et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics, 2013, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
65. Runkel R.L., Crawford C.G., Cohn T.A. Load Estimator (LOADEST): A Fortran program for estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers 2004, (US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods: 4-A.). http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/tm4A5/.
66. Sánchez-Canales M., Benito A.L., Passuello A., Terrado M., Ziv G., Acuña V., et al. Sensitivity analysis of ecosystem service valuation in a Mediterranean watershed. Science of the Total Environment 2012, 440:140-153. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012/07.071.
67. Schägner J.P., Brander L., Maes J., Hartje V. Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:33-46. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.003.
68. Seppelt R., Dormann C.F., Eppink F.V., Lautenbach S., Schmidt S. Aquantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48:630-636. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.
69. Singh S., Chang H. Effects of land cover change on water quality in urban streams at two spatial scales. International Journal of Geospatial and Environmental Research 2014, 1.
70. Su S., Xiao R., Jiang Z., Zhang Y. Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale. Applied Geography 2012, 34:295-305. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.001.
71. Tallis H.T., Ricketts T., Guerry A.D., Wood S.A., Sharp R., Nelson E., et al. InVEST 2.5.3 user's guide 2013, The Natural Capital Project, Stanford. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org.
72. Taylor K.E., Stouffer R.J., Meehl G.A. An overview of the CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2012, 93(4):485-498. 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
73. Terrado M., Acuña V., Ennaanay D., Tallis H., Sabater S. Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecological Indicators 2014, 37(A):199-209. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01016.
74. Thompson J.R., Wiek A., Swanson F.J., Carpenter S.R., Hollingsworth T., Spies T.A., et al. Scenario studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long-term ecological research. BioScience 2012, 62(4):367-376. 10.1525/bio.2012.62.4.8.
75. Tong S.T.Y., Sun Y., Ranatunga T., He J., Yang Y.J. Predicting plausible impacts of sets of climate and land use change scenarios on water resources. Applied Geography 2012, 32(2):477-489. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.014.
76. Troy A., Wilson M. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 2006, 60(2):435-449. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007.
77. USGS (US Geological Survey) National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2 [Data]. Pacific Northwest 2013, Retrieved from. http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_17.php.
78. USGS (US Geological Survey) National water information system [data]. USGS surface-water daily data for the nation 2013, Retrieved from, Accessed 23.09.13. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?referred_module=sw.
79. Vigorstol K.L., Aukema J.E. Acomparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92:2403-2409. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.040.
80. Wickham J.D., Stehman S.V., Gass L., Dewitz J., Fry J.A., Wade T.G. Accuracy assessment of NLCD 2006 land cover and impervious surface. Remote Sensing of Environment 2013, 130:294-304. 10.1016/j.rse.2012.12.001.
81. Wischmeier W.H., Smith D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning 1978, (USDA - ARS Agriculture Handbook, Washington D.C).
82. Zhang L., Dawes W.R., Walker G.R. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation change at a catchment scale. Water Resources Research 2001, 37(3):701-708. 10.1029/2000WR900325.
83. Zheng H., Robinson B.E., Liang Y., Polasky S., Wang F.-C., Ruckelshaus M., et al. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2013, 10.1073/pnas.1312324110.