Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: A case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 149, Issue , 2016, Pages 31-42

  Zank, Ben ^a,e   Bagstad, Kenneth J ^b   Voigt, Brian ^c   Villa, Ferdinando ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^e BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

ARIES; Ecosystem service flows; Land use change; Natural capital; Scenario analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EXPANSION; FLOODS; FORESTRY; LAND USE; STORAGE AS A SERVICE (STAAS);

ARIES; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LAND-USE CHANGE; NATURAL CAPITAL; SCENARIO ANALYSIS;

ECOSYSTEMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FLOOD CONTROL; HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX; LAND USE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; NATURAL CAPITAL; RESOURCE ASSESSMENT; URBAN PLANNING; URBANIZATION; VIEWSHED;

PUGET SOUND; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

EID: 84955597207     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. 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 from http://www.ariesonline.org/toolkit.html.
2. Bagstad K.J., Johnson G.W., Voigt B., Villa F. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:117-125. arxiv:/hhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012.
3. Bagstad K.J., Semmens D., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.007.
4. Bagstad K.J., Villa F., Batker D., Harrison-Cox J., Voigt B., Johnson G.W. From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology and Society 2014, 19(2):64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06523-190264.
5. Bennet E.M., Peterson G.D., Gordon L.J. Understanding the relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 2009, 12:1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.
6. Bockstael N.E., Freeman A.M., Kopp R.J., Portney P.R., Smith V.K. On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science and Technology 2000, 34:1384-1389. http://dx.doi.org/990673l.
7. Bolte, J. P., & Vache, K. (2010). Envisioning puget sound alternative futures: PSNERP final report. Retrieved from http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/supporting_documents/FRAP%20final%20report.pdf.
8. Bolte J.P., Hulse D.W., Gregory S.V., Smith C. Modeling biocomplexity-actors, landscapes, and alternative futures. Environmental Modeling and Software 2006, 22(5):570-579. arxiv:/http:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.033.
9. Eigenbrod F., Armsworth P.R., Anderson B.J., Heinemeyer A., Gillings S., Roy D.B., et al. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47(2):377-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x.
10. Eigenbrod F., Bell V.A., Davies N.H., Heinemeyer A., Armswoth P.R., Gaston K.J. The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278:3201-3208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2754.
11. Estoque R.C., Murayama Y. Landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes: implications for environmental sustainability planning for the rapidly urbanizing summer capital of the Philippines. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 116:60-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.008.
12. Farley J. The role of prices in conserving critical natural capital. Conservation Biology 2008, 1399-1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01090.x.
13. Forouzangohar M., Crossman N.D., Macewan R.J., Wallace D.D., Bennett L.T. Ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: a spatially explicit approach to support sustainable soil management. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 483298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/483298.
14. Gaydos, J. K., & Brown, N. A. (2011). Species of concern within the Salish Sea: changes from 2002 to 2011. Proceedings of the 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference, October 25-27, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://www.seadocsociety.org/files/pdfs/Salish%20Sea%20Species%20of%20Concern%202011%20Final.pdf.
15. Gómez-Baggethun E., Gren A., Barton D.N., Langemeyer J., McPhearson T., O'Farrell P., et al. Urban ecosystem services. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities 2013, 175-251. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11, T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P.J. Marcotullio, R.I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K.C. Seto, C. Wilkinson (Eds.).
16. Grêt-Regamey A., Weibel B., Bagstad K.J., Ferrari M., Geneletti D., Klug H., et al. On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping. PLoS One 2014, 9(12):112601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112601.
17. Holland R.A., Eigenbrod F., Armsworth P.R., Anderson B.J., Thomas C.D., Heinemeyer A., et al. Spatial covariation between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21(6):2034-2048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09-2195.1.
18. Hubacek K., Kronenberg J. Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 109:1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010.
19. Jansson Å. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 2013, 86:285-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.013.
20. Jones K.B., Zurlini G., Kienast F., Petrosillo I., Edwards T., Wade T.G., et al. Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecology 2013, 28:1175-1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9794-4.
21. Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.001.0001, P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
22. Kraas F. Megacities and global change: key priorities. The Geographical Journal 2007, 173(1):79-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.232_2.x.
23. Kreuter U.P., Harris H.G., Matlock M.D., Lacey R.E. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics 2001, 39:333-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00250-6.
24. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.008.
25. Liu Y., Li J., Zhang H. An ecosystem service valuation of land use change in Taiyuan City, China. Ecological Modelling 2012, 225:127-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.11.017.
26. Martinez-Harms M.J., Balvanera P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services, and Management 2012, 8(1-2):17-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792.
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Millennium Ecosystem assessment: living beyond our means-natural assets and human well-being. World Resources Institute Washington, D.C.
28. ® guide to GIS analysis volume 2: spatial measurements & statistics 2006, The ESRI Press, Redlands, CA.
29. Mitchell M.G.E.,Suarez-Castro A.F., Martinez-Harms M., Maron M., McAlpine C., Gaston, et al. Reframing landscape fragmenation's effects on ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2015, 30(4):190-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.011.
30. Moore S.K., Mantua N.J., Salathé E.P. Past trends and future scenarios for environmental conditions favoring the accumulation of paralytic shellfish toxins in Puget Sound shellfish. Harmful Algae 2011, 10:521-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.04.004.
31. Mote P. W., Snover A. K., Whitely Binder L., Hamlet A. F., & Mantua N. J. (2005). Uncertain future: climate change and its effects on puget sound-foundation document. Climate Impacts Group, Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
32. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2015). National land cover database 2011 product legend. Retrieved from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_leg.php.
33. Nelson E., Mendoza G., Regetz J., Polasky S., Tallis H., Cameron D.R., et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):4-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080023.
34. Nickerson, C., Ebel, R., Borchers, A., & Carriazo, F., (2011). Major uses of land in the United States, 2007. USDA Economic Research Service Economic Information Bulletin Number 89.
35. Nowak D.J., Walton T.J. Projected urban growth (2000-2050) and its estimated impact on the US forest resource. Journal of Forestry 2005, 103(8):383-389.
36. O'sullivan D., Unwinn D.J. Geographic information analysis 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ.
37. Palomo I., Martín-López B., Potschin M., Haines-Young R., Montes C. National parks, buffer zones, and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services 2013, 4:104-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001.
38. Plummer M.L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):38-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080091.
39. Puget Sound Partnership State of the Sound report 2012, Puget Sound Partnership, Tacoma, Washington.
40. Puget Sound Partnership The 2012/2013 action agenda for Puget Sound 2012, Puget Sound Partnership, Tacoma, Washington.
41. 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 2010, 107(11):5242-5247. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.
42. Schröter, M., & R.P. Remme (in press). Spatial prioritization for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimization. Forthcoming in: Landscape Ecology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0258-5.
43. Schröter M., Barton D.N., Remme R.P., Hein L. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: a conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 2014, 36:539-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018.
44. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.001.
45. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013.
46. Tianhong L., Wenkai L., Zhenghan Q. Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen. Ecological Economics 2010, 68:1427-1435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.018.
47. Troy A., Wilson M.A. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in link GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:435-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007.
48. U.S. Geological Survey (2006). USGS science for Puget Sound restoration and preservation: coastal habitats in Puget Sound (CHIPS). Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3081/pdf/fs20063081.pdf.
49. Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Johnson G.W., Voigt B., Portela R., Honzak M., et al. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS One 2014, 9(3):e91001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091001.
50. Washington State Department of Ecology (2013). Saving our Sound website, Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/Overview.html.
51. Washington State Office of Financial Management (2007). State population forecast. Retrieved from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/stfc/.
52. Wu J. Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning 2014, 125:209-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018.
53. Zhao B., Kreuter U., Li B., Zhijun M., Chen J., Nakagoshi N. An ecosystem service value assessment of land use change on Chongming Island, China. Land Use Policy 2004, 21:139-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.003.