Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of spatial priority areas for hydrological ecosystem services through coupling hydrology model and Zonation model under different economic costs of water utilizations in northernmost of Japan

  • Original article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the importance of addressing economic values of ecosystem services in ecological planning and decision-making is evident, substantial practical challenges still remain. In particular, methods to identify spatial priority areas for the provision of hydrological ecosystem services across watershed need to be developed. Spatial priority areas are those locations which provide high benefits from one or more ecosystem service. Here we mapped a set of ecosystem services from hydrology model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) and delineated priority areas from Zonation model according to different economic cost layer scenarios. Each economic cost layer scenario was produced by a set of water yields allocated to different utilizations for socio-economic development and corresponds to different water resources exploitation strategies which different stakeholders could undertake. Using the northernmost of Japan (Teshio watershed) as a case study, we processed grid maps of key individual and multiple ecosystem services including water yield, and inorganic and organic nutrient retentions, and also explored their spatial distribution patterns. Finally, we showed spatial priority areas for individual and multiple hydrological ecosystem services using different economic cost layers which corresponded to different water resources utilization. Our results are as follows: (i) there were two main spatial distribution patterns of ecosystem services in this study site, water yield, and organic nutrient and sediment retention services (concentrated in northern, southeastern and southwestern locations of study watershed) and inorganic nutrient retention services (concentrated in agricultural lands and riparian areas); (ii) tremendous changes took place in the spatial patterns of priority areas for individual and multiple ecosystem services with considering different economic costs; (iii) it is important to simultaneously consider individual and multiple ecosystem services under different economic costs in identifying spatial priority areas. Different economic cost layer scenarios provoke drastic changes in the delineation of priority areas, and therefore decision-making processes need to carefully consider the relative economic values attributed to different services for regional ecosystem management and planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alibuyog NR, Ella VB, Reyes MR, Srinivasan R, Heatwole C, Dillaha T (2009) Predicting the effects of land use change on runoff and sediment yield in Manupali River sub-watersheds using the SWAT model. Int Agric Eng J 18:15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F et al (2009) Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A et al (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Allen PM (1996) Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watersheds. J Hydrol 176:57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aznarez C, Jimeno-Sáez P, López-Ballesteros A, Pacheco JP, Senent-Aparicio J (2021) Analysing the impact of climate change on hydrological ecosystem services in Laguna del Sauce (Uruguay) using the SWAT model and remote sensing data. Remote Sens 13:2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Long A (1994) Avian endemism and forest loss. Nature 372:623–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A et al (2001) Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291:2616–2619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A et al (2000) Integrating conservation costs into international priority setting. Conserv Biol 11:597–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Fisher B, Green RE, Naidoo R, Strassburg B, Kerry Turner R, Rodrigues ASL (2011) Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ Resour Econ 48:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA (2005) A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J Hydrol 310:28–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2003) Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv Biol 17:1402–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biol Cons 132:336–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casalegno S, Bennie JJ, Inger R, Gaston KJ (2014) Regional scale prioritisation for key ecosystem services, renewable energy production and urbandevelopment. PLoS ONE 9(9):e107822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Hoshizaki L, Klinkenberg, (2011) Ecosystem services in conservation planning: targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs? PLoS Biology 6(9):e24378-1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwoood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4(11):e379-2138–2152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2013) Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol Conserv 166:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher-Kharrat MB, Zein HE, Rouhan G (2018) Setting conservation priorities for Lebanese flora-identification of important plant areas. J Nat Conserv 43:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky s, Goldstein G, et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degroot RS, 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. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan M, Shibata H (2014) Spatial and temporal analysis of hydrological provision ecosystem services for watershed conservation planning of water resources. Water Resour Manage 28:3619–3636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan M, Shibata H (2015) Simulation of watershed hydrology and stream water quality under land use and climate change scenarios in Teshio River watershed, northern Japan. Ecol Indic 50:79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan M, Shibata H, Chen L (2018a) Spatial priority conservation areas for water yield ecosystem service under climate change scenarios in Teshio watershed, northernmost of Japan (In Press). J Water Clim Change

  • Fan M, Shibata H, Chen L (2018b) Reconciling spatial conservation of multiple hydrological ecosystem services across Teshio Watershed, Northern Japan. J Water Resour Plann Manage 144(2):05017022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan M, Shibata H, Wang Q (2016) Optimal conservation planning of multiple hydrological ecosystem services under land use and climate changes in Teshio river watershed, northernmost of Japan. Ecol Ind 62:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick FA, Scudder BC, Lenz BN, Sullivan DJ (2001) Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1489–1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon A, Simondson D, White M, Moilanen A, Bekessy SA (2009) Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes. Lands Urban Plan 91(4):183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverkamp S, Fohrer N, Frede HG (2005) Assessment of the effect of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions: a comprehensive GIS-based tool to minimize model uncertainty resulting from spatial aggregation. Hydrol Process 19:715–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ileva NY, Shibata H, Satoh F, Sasa K, Ueda, (2009) Relationship between the riverine nitrate-nitrogen concentration and the land use in the Teshio River watershed, North Japan. Sustain Sci 4:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Lupi F, Arreola O (2012) Local markets for payments for environmental services: can small rural communities self-finance watershed protection? Water Resour Manag 26:3689–3740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Cameron A, Moilanen A et al (2008) Aligning conservation priorities across Taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320(5873):222–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2017) Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol 32(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J, Moilanen A, Francis M, Elith J, Taylor P, Julian K, Hastie T, Duffy C (2008) Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conserv Lett 1(2):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legesse D, Vallet-Coulomb C, Gasse F (2003) Hydrological response of a catchment to climate and land use changes in Tropical Africa: case study South Central Ethiopia. J Hydrol 275:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat DR, Crawford JK (1994) Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia 294(3):185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall E, Randhir T (2008) Effect of climate change on watershed system: a regional analysis. Clim Change 89:263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikusinski G, Pressey RL, Edenius L, Kujala H, Moilanen A, Niemelä J, Ranius T (2007) Conservation planning in forest landscape of Fennoscandia and an approach to the challenge of countdown 2010. Conserv Biol 21(6):1445–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishima S, Endo A, Kohyama K (2010) Nitrogen and phosphorus balance on crop production in Japan on national and prefectural scales. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 87:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A (2015) Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10(9):094014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2007) Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134(4):571–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Arponen A, Stockland JN, Cabeza M (2009) Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities? Biol Conserv 142:575–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B 272:1885–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL (2005) Modeling opportunity costs of conservation in transitional landscapes. Conserv Biol 20(2):490–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21(12):681–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Daily GC (2006) Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology 87:1877–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Rusch GM, Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Nordén B (2014) Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. PLoS One 9:e112557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulp CJE, Van Teeffelen AJA, Tucker G, Verburg PH (2016) A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union. Land Use Policy 57:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart RRM, Possingham HP (2005) Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environ Model Assess 10(3):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton NJ, Cho S, Armsworth PR (2016) A reliance on agricultural land values in conservation planning alters the spatial distribution of priorities and overestimates the acquisition costs of protected areas. Biol Conserv 194:2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tani M (1997) Runoff gegeration processes estimated from hydrological observations on a steep forested hillslope with a thin soil layer. J Hydrol 200:84–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trisurat Y, Alkemade R, Verburg PH (2010) Projecting land-use change and its consequences for biodiversity in Northern Thailand. Environ Manage 45:626–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsukamoto Y, Ohta T (1988) Runoff process on a steep forested slope. J Hydrol 102:165–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen W, Teeffelen AJAV, Baggio A, Poggio L, Gimona A, Verburg PH (2016) Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland. Landsc Ecol 31:1457–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen W, Kukkala AS, Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2017) Use of demand and spatial flow in prioritizing areas for ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 31(4):860–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen W, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2018) Shifting spatial priorities for ecosystem services in Europe following land use change. Ecol Ind 89:397–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139(3–4):235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RS, Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Steinback C, Lourival R, Kircher L, Possingham HP (2009) Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environ Modell Softw 24-S1:1513–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Berndt HD (1977) Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Trans ASAE 20(6):1100–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Jones CA, Dyke PT (1984) A modelling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Trans ASAE 27:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH et al (2003) Integrating biodiversity priorities with conflicting socio-economic values in the Guinean-Congolian forest region. Biodiv Conserv 12:1297–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao B, Kreuter U, Li B, Ma ZJ, Chen JK, Nakagoshi N (2004) An ecosystem service value assessment of land-use change on Chongming Island, China. Land Use Policy 21:139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for fundamental improvement of this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Key Research and Development Projects of Sichuan Science and Technology Plan (No. 2019YFS0057) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41601088).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment and Resource, Fucheng District, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Number 59, Middle of Qinglong Road, Mianyang, 621-010, Sichuan, China

    Min Fan

  2. Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Kita 10, Nishi 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-0810, Japan

    Min Fan

  3. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Fucheng District, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Number 59, Middle of Qinglong Road, Mianyang, 621-010, Sichuan, China

    Manjiang Shi

  4. Chengdu Tuojiang River Basin Investment Development Group Co, Zhonghai International Center, Jiaozi Avenue, Wuhou District, LtdChengdu, 610-000, Sichuan, China

    Yunfeng Liu, Wen Chen, Yue Deng & Meiling Wang

Authors
  1. Min Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manjiang Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yunfeng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yue Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Meiling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Fan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 491 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, M., Shi, M., Liu, Y. et al. Implications of spatial priority areas for hydrological ecosystem services through coupling hydrology model and Zonation model under different economic costs of water utilizations in northernmost of Japan. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 27, 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09976-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09976-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation