Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 911–926 | Cite as

Hierarchical priority setting for restoration in a watershed in NE Spain, based on assessments of soil erosion and ecosystem services

  • Mattia Trabucchi
  • Francisco A. Comín
  • Patrick J. O’Farrell
Original Article


Maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services through the restoration of degraded ecosystems have become an important biodiversity conservation strategy. Deciding where to restore ecosystems for the attainment of multiple services is a key issue for future planning, management, and human well-being. Most restoration projects usually entail a small number of actions in a local area and do not consider the potential benefits of planning restoration at broad regional scales. We developed a hierarchical priority setting approach to evaluate the performance of restoration measures in a semiarid basin in NE Spain (the Martín River Basin, 2,112 km2). Our analysis utilized a combination of erosion (a key driver of degradation in this Mediterranean region) and six spatially explicit ecosystem services data layers (five of these maps plotted surrogates for soil retention and accumulation, water supply and regulation, and carbon storage, and one plotted a cultural service, ecotourism). Hierarchical maps were generated using a geographic information system that combined areas important for providing a bundle of ecosystem services, as state variables, with erosion maps, as the disturbance or regulatory variable. This was performed for multiple scales, thereby identifying the most adequate scale of analysis and establishing a spatial hierarchy of restoration actions based on the combination of the evaluation of erosion rates and the provision of ecosystem services. Our approach provides managers with a straightforward method for determining the spatial distribution of values for a set of ecosystem services in relation to ecological degradation thresholds and for allocating efforts and resources for restoration projects in complex landscapes.


Basin management Mediterranean Spatial prioritization Semiarid landscape GIS Planning 



This work was funded by Endesa S.A. through the collaborative agreement Endesa-CSIC for scientific research. The first author wants to thank Belinda Reyers for the fruitful conversation and helpfulness showed in every moment and two anonymous referees for their constructive suggestions. M. Trabucchi was in receipt of grant from JAE-DOC Program for Advanced Study financed by the European Social Fund (ESF), Ref. I3P-BPD-2006.


  1. Nainggolan D et al (2011). Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: a case study from south-eastern Spain. Reg Environ ChangeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey PA et al (1993) A fish community analysis of the Minnesota River basin. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell GP (1998) Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell SS, Fonseca MS, Motten LB (1997) Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Rest Ecol 5(4):318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett EM, Peterson Garry D, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA (2011) The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Ann NY Acad Sci 1223(1):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohn BA, Kershner JL (2002) Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. J Environ Manag 64(4):355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol Manag Restor 4(3):193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bot A, Benites J (2005). The Importance of Soil Organic Matter: Key to Drought-resistant Soil and Sustained Food Production, Food & Agriculture OrgGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourgeron PS, Jensen ME (1994) An overview of ecological principles for ecosystem management. In: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, pp 45–57Google Scholar
  11. Brabyn L, Mark DM (2011) Using viewsheds, GIS, and a landscape classification to tag landscape photographs. Appl Geogr 31:1115–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandt J (2003) Multifunctional landscapes perspectives for the future. J Environ Sci China 15(2):187–192Google Scholar
  13. Brown LR (1981) World population growth, soil erosion, and food security. (Adapted from book). Science, Washington, 214Google Scholar
  14. Bullock JM et al (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26(10):541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnett C, Blaschke T (2003) A multi-scale segmentation/object relationship modelling methodology for landscape analysis. Ecol Model 168(3):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cammeraat LH (2002) A review of two strongly contrasting geomorphological systems within the context of scale. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 27(11):1201–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carreño L, Frank FC, Viglizzo EF (2012) Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cespedes-Payret C et al (2009) The irruption of new agro-industrial technologies in Uruguay and their environmental impacts on soil, water supply and biodiversity: a review. Int J Environ Health 3(2):175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chu C, Minns CK, Mandrak NE (2003) Comparative regional assessment of factors impacting freshwater fish biodiversity in Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60(5):624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cipollini KA, Maruyama AL, Zimmerman CL (2005) Planning for restoration: a decision analysis approach to prioritization. Restor Ecol 13(3):460–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Comín FA (2010) Ecological restoration: a global challenge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Comin FA et al (2009) Establishing priorities for the management and restoration of river basins with opencast coal mines. River Basin Manag 5:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dale VH, Polasky S (2007) Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64(2):286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Groot RS et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dobson AP, Bradshaw AD, Baker AJM (1997) Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277(5325):515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2008) ArcGIS desktop (ArcInfo) software. ESRI, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM (2011)244 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. FAO-UNESCO (1988) Soil map of the world, revised legend; world soil, resources report 60, FAO-RomGoogle Scholar
  30. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. García-Ruiz JM (2010) The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: a review. CATENA 81(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gisladottir G, Stocking M (2005) Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits. Land Degrad Dev 16(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Golley FB (1994) Development of landscape ecology and its relation to environmental management. Ecosyst Manag Princ Appl 2:34–41Google Scholar
  34. Gòmez-Sal A, Gónzalez-García A (2007) A comprehensive assessment of multifunctional agricultural land-use systems in Spain using a multi-dimensional evaluative model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120(1):82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Groffman P et al (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gyssels G et al (2005) Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review. Prog Phys Geogr 29(2):189–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haines-Young R, Chopping M (1996) Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Prog Phys Geogr 20(4):418–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hay GJ, Marceau DJ, Dube P et al (2001) A multiscale framework for landscape analysis: object-specific analysis and upscaling. Landscape Ecol 16(6):471–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hein L et al (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Repairing the earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Rest Ecol 9(2):239–246Google Scholar
  41. Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huxel GR, Hastings A (1999) Habitat loss, fragmentation, and restoration. Restor Ecol 7(3):309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jackway PT, Deriche M (1996) Scale-space properties of the multiscale morphological dilation-erosion. Patt Anal Mach Intell IEEE Trans 18(1):38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones RJA (2005) Estimating organic carbon in the soils of Europe for policy support. Eur J Soil Sci 56(5):655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kemper WD (1993) Effects of soil properties on precipitation use efficiency. Irrigation Sci 14:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klijn F, Groen CL, Witte JPM (1996) Ecoseries for potential site mapping, an example from the Netherlands. Landscape Urban Plan 35(1):53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kondolf G, Micheli E (1995) Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environ Manag 19(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kremen C, Ostfeld RS (2005) A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 3:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee DC, Grant WE (1995) A hierarchical approach to fisheries planning and modeling in the Columbia River Basin. Environ Manag 19(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewis CA et al (1996) Considerations of scale in habitat conservation and restoration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(1):440–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li MH et al (2003) Landscape ecology and restoration of degraded ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica 23(8):1622–1628Google Scholar
  52. López M et al (1998) Tillage effects on soil surface conditions and dust emission by wind erosion in semiarid Aragón (NE Spain). Soil Tillage Res 45(1–2):91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lupwayi NZ, Rice WA, Clayton GW (1998) Soil microbial diversity and community structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Biol Biochem 30(13):1733–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marcot BG (1998) Selecting appropriate statistical procedures and asking the right questions: a synthesis. Statistical methods for adaptive management studies. Lands Manag Handbook 42:129–143Google Scholar
  55. Martín-López B et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6):38970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McIntosh BA, et al (1994) Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321Google Scholar
  57. Michener WK (1997) Quantitatively evaluating restoration experiments: research design, statistical analysis, and data management considerations. Restor Ecol 5(4):324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Milne BT (1994) Pattern analysis for landscape evaluation and characterization. Eastside For Ecosyst Health Assess 2:121–134Google Scholar
  59. Milne M, Lewis D (2011) Considerations for rehabilitating naturally disturbed stands: part 1–Watershed hydrology. About the cover photograph: the Okanagan’s White Lake basin was investigated last 55Google Scholar
  60. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  61. Moreno-de las Heras M et al (2011) Water-related ecological impacts of rill erosion processes in Mediterranean-dry reclaimed slopes. CATENA 84(3):114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nakamura F, Inahara S, Kaneko M (2005) A hierarchical approach to ecosystem assessment of restoration planning at regional, catchment and local scales in Japan. Landscape Ecol Eng 1(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004). Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 89–111Google Scholar
  64. Orsi F, Church RL, Geneletti D (2011) Restoring forest landscapes for biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods: a spatial optimization model. Environ Model Softw 26(12):1622–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Palik BJ et al (2000) Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecol Appl 10(1):189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Palik BJ, Buech R, Egeland L (2003) Using an ecological hierarchy to predict seasonal wetland abundance in upland. Ecol Appl 13(4):1153–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pert PL et al (2010) A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: a case study from the wet tropics, Australia. Ecol Complex 7(3):378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365(1554):2959–2971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Powlson DS, et al (2011) Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy 36 Supplement 1(0):S72–S87Google Scholar
  70. Prach K et al (2001) The role of spontaneous vegetation succession in ecosystem restoration: a perspective. Appl Veg Sci 4(1):111–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Prosperi JM et al (2006) Morphologic and agronomic diversity of wild genetic resources of Medicago sativa L. Collected in Spain. Genet Resour Crop Evol 53(4):843–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Quinton JN, Edwards GM, Morgan RPC (1997) The influence of vegetation species and plant properties on runoff and soil erosion: results from a rainfall simulation study in south east Spain. Soil Use Manag 13(3):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010a) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceed Nat Acad Sci 107(11):5242–5247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010b) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceed Nat Acad Sci 107(11):5242–5247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Renard KG, et al (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook (Washington), (703)Google Scholar
  76. Rey Benayas JM et al (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325(5944):1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Cowling RM, Egoh BN, Le Maitre DC, Vlok JHJ (2009) Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Soc 14(1):38Google Scholar
  78. Reynolds JF et al (2007) Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316(5826):847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rodríguez JP et al (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28Google Scholar
  80. Rojo L (1990) Plan nacional de restauración hidrológico-forestal y control de la erosión, MemoriaGoogle Scholar
  81. Ruiz-Navarro A et al (2012) Effect of the spatial resolution on landscape control of soil fertility in a semiarid area. J Soils Sediments 12(4):471–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rutchey K, Godin J (2009) Determining an appropriate minimum mapping unit in vegetation mapping for ecosystem restoration: a case study from the Everglades, USA. Landscape Ecol 24(10):1351–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Scanlon B, Healy R, Cook P (2002) Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:18–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schröter D et al (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310(5752):1333–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith MJD, Goodchild MF, Longley PA (2007) Geospatial analysis: a comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. Troubador Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  86. Su C et al (2012) Ecosystem management based on ecosystem services and human activities: a case study in the Yanhe watershed RID B-1493-2009. Sustain Sci 7(1):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suding KN (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42(1):465–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR (2004) Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19(1):46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Trabucchi M, Puente C et al (2012a) Mapping erosion risk at the basin scale in a Mediterranean environment with opencast coal mines to target restoration actions. Reg Environ Change. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0278-5
  90. Trabucchi M, Ntshotsho P et al (2012b) Ecosystem service trends in basin-scale restoration initiatives: a review. J Environ Manag 111:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Trabucchi M, O’Farrell P, Notivol E, Comin FA (2012c) Mapping ecosystem services for management and targeting restoration efforts in a semi-arid Mediterranean river basin (submitted)Google Scholar
  92. Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol Econ 60(2):435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Turner MG, et al (1994) Multiscale organization of landscape heterogeneity. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-319. Portland, Oregon USA, pp 73–79Google Scholar
  94. Turner MG et al (1993) A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landscape Ecol 8(3):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. White PS, Walker JL (1997) Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5(4):338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19(2):125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wu J et al (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Ann GIS 6(1):6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Yuan J et al (2006) Soil formation and vegetation establishment on the cliff face of abandoned quarries in the early stages of natural colonization. Restor Ecol 14(3):349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhang W et al (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64(2):253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ziemer RR (1997) Temporal and spatial scales. Watershed restoration: principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 80–95Google Scholar
  101. Ziemer RR (1999) Some scale considerations for watercourse restoration and rehabilitation. Notes: we recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information. This article was written and prepared by US Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domainGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mattia Trabucchi
    • 1
  • Francisco A. Comín
    • 1
  • Patrick J. O’Farrell
    • 2
  1. 1.Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (CSIC)ZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Natural Resources and the EnvironmentCouncil for Scientific and Industrial ResearchStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations