Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 59–75 | Cite as

Spatial fit between water quality policies and hydrologic ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural landscape

  • Jiangxiao QiuEmail author
  • Chloe B. Wardropper
  • Adena R. Rissman
  • Monica G. Turner
Research Article



Sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services is critical for human wellbeing but challenged by land use for agriculture and urban development. Water policy and management strive to safeguard hydrologic services, yet implementation is often fragmented. Understanding the spatial fit between water polices and hydrologic services is needed to assess the spatial targeting of policy portfolios at landscape scales.


We investigated spatial fit between 30 different public water policies and four hydrologic services (surface and groundwater quality, freshwater supply, and flood regulation) in the Yahara Watershed (Wisconsin, USA)—a Midwestern landscape that typifies tensions between agriculture, urban development, and freshwater resources.


Spatial extent of water policy implementation was mapped, and indicators of hydrologic services were quantified for subwatersheds using empirical estimates and validated spatial models.


We found a spatial misfit between the overall spatial implementation of water policy and regions of water quality concern, indicating a need for better targeting. Water quality policies can also be leveraged to protect other hydrologic services such as freshwater supply and flood regulation. Individual policy application areas varied substantially in their spatial congruence with each hydrologic service, indicating that not all services are protected by a single policy and highlighting the need for a broad spectrum of policies to sustain hydrologic services in diverse landscapes. We also identified where future policies could be targeted for improving hydrologic services.


Joint spatial analysis of policies and ecosystem services is effective for assessing spatial aspects of institutional fit, and provides a foundation for guiding future policy efforts.


Freshwater Spatial overlap Policy targeting Surface-water quality Groundwater quality Groundwater recharge Flood regulation Landscape ecology Yahara Watershed Wisconsin 



We thank Eric Booth and Chaoyi Chang for providing technical support on this study. Eric Booth provided valuable inputs and helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also appreciate constructive comments from four anonymous reviewers that greatly improved this manuscript. The project was funded by the National Science Foundation Water Sustainability and Climate grant (DEB 1038759) and Northern Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research (DEB 1440297).

Supplementary material

10980_2016_428_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. Allan JD, McIntyre PB, Smith SDP, Halpern BS, Boyer GL, Buchsbaum A, Burton GA, Campbell LM, Chadderton WL, Ciborowski JJ, Doran PJ (2013) Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to enhance restoration effectiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(1):372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD, Smith SDP, McIntyre PB, Allan JD, Smith SD, McIntyre PB, Joseph CA, Dickinson CE, Marino AL, Biel RG, Olson JC, Doran PJ, Rutherford ES, Adkins JE (2015) Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Front Ecol Environ 13(8):418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97(11):5954–5959CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Asbjornsen H, Mayer AS, Jones KW, Selfa T, Saenz L, Kolka RK, Halvorsen KE (2015) Assessing impacts of payments for watershed services on sustainability in coupled human and natural systems. BioScience 65(6):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengston DN, Fletcher JO, Nelson KC (2004) Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan 69(2–3):271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Biswas AK (2004) Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water Int 29(1):398–405Google Scholar
  9. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Env Resour 32:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown K (2003) Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchwald CA (2005) Water use in Wisconsin, 2005. Open-File Report 2009-1076. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter SR, Benson BJ, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Benson BJ, Biggs R, Chipman JW, Foley JA, Golding SA, Hammer RB, Hanson PC, Johnson PT, Kamarainen AM, Kratz TK (2007) Understanding regional change: a comparison of two lake districts. BioScience 57(4):323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carpenter SR, Lathrop RC, Nowak P, Bennett EM, Reed T, Soranno PA (2006) The ongoing experiment: restoration of Lake Mendota and its watershed. In: Magnuson JJ, Kratz TK, Benson BJ (eds) Long-term dynamics of lakes in the landscape: long-term ecological research on north temperate lakes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ (2011) State of the world’s freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annu Rev Env Resour 36:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter V, Novitzki R (1987) Some comments on the relation between ground water and wetlands. In: Hook DD, McKee WH, Smith HK, Gregory J, Burrell VG, DeVoe MR, Sojka RE, Gilbert S, Banks R, Stolzy LH, Brooks C, Matthews ThD, Shear TH (eds) The ecology and management of wetlands. Springer, NewYork, pp 68–86Google Scholar
  17. Doremus H (2003) A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ Sci Policy 6(3):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dripps WR, Bradbury KR (2007) A simple daily soil–water balance model for estimating the spatial and temporal distribution of groundwater recharge in temperate humid areas. Hydrogeol J 15(3):433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ekstrom JA, Young OR (2009) Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol Soc 14(2):62Google Scholar
  20. Fairfax SK, Gwin L, King MA, Raymond L, Watt LA (2005) Buying nature: the limits of land acquisition as a conservation strategy, 1780–2004. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Fry JA, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz JA, Homer CG, Limin Y, Barnes CA, Herold ND, Wickham JD (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover data for the conteminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(9):858–864Google Scholar
  22. Genskow KD (2012) Taking stock of voluntary nutrient management: measuring and tracking change. J Soil Water Conserv 67(1):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilinsky E, Baker M, Capacasa J, King ES (2009) An urgent call to action—report of the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Gillon S, Booth EG, Rissman AR (2015) Shifting drivers and static baselines in environmental governance: challenges for improving and proving water quality outcomes. Reg Environ Change 16:759–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2008) Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. Trends Ecol Evol 23(4):211–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Guerra CA, Metzger MJ, Maes J, Pinto-Correia T (2015) Policy impacts on regulating ecosystem services: looking at the implications of 60 years of landscape change on soil erosion prevention in a Mediterranean silvo-pastoral system. Landscape Ecol 31(2):1–20Google Scholar
  27. Harrison-Atlas D, Theobald DM, Goldstein JH (2016) A systematic review of approaches to quantify hydrologic ecosystem services to inform decision making. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2016.1181105 Google Scholar
  28. Herrmann S, Osinski E (1999) Planning sustainable land use in rural areas at different spatial levels using GIS and modelling tools. Landsc Urban Plan 46(1–3):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hershfield DM (1963) Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States: for durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. Technical Paper No. 40. US Department of Commerce, Weather BureauGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones KB, Zurlini G, Kienast F, Petrosillo I, Edwards T, Wade TG, Li BL, Zaccarelli N (2013) Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecol 28(6):1175–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S (eds) (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Langpap C (2006) Conservation of endangered species: can incentives work for private landowners? Ecol Econ 57(4):558–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lathrop RC (2007) Perspectives on the eutrophication of the Yahara lakes. Lake Reserv Manage 23(4):345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lavoie R, Lebel A, Joerin F, Rodriguez MJ (2013) Integration of groundwater information into decision making for regional planning: a portrait for North America. J Environ Manage 114:496–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubell M (2004) Collaborative watershed management: a view from the grassroots. Policy Stud J 32(3):341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui F (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405(6783):243–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Marinoni O, Higgins A, Coad P, Garcia JN (2013) Directing urban development to the right places: assessing the impact of urban development on water quality in an estuarine environment. Landsc Urban Plan 113:62–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Montgomery Associates (2011) Yahara CLEAN non-point source modeling report for the Dane County Department of Land and Water Resources. Montgomery Associates, Cottage GroveGoogle Scholar
  41. Morris AW, Rissman AR (2009) Public access to information on private land conservation: tracking conservation easements. Wis Law Rev 2009:1237–1435Google Scholar
  42. Moss T (2012) Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecol Soc 17(3):2Google Scholar
  43. Mubako ST, Ruddell BL, Mayer AS (2013) Relationship between water withdrawals and freshwater ecosystem water scarcity quantified at multiple scales for a Great Lakes watershed. J Water Res PL-ASCE 139(6):671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Newig J, Gunther D, Pahl-Wostl C (2010) Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol Soc 15(4):24Google Scholar
  46. Nowak P, Bowen S, Cabot PE (2006) Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and biophysical systems. Soc Nat Resour 19(2):153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Owen D (2013) Mapping, modeling, and the fragmentation of environmental Law. Utah Law Review 2013(1):219–282Google Scholar
  49. Perez MR (2015) Regulating farmer nutrient management: a three-state case study on the Delmarva Pennisula. J Environ Qual 44(2):402–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A, Happe K, Sahrbacher A, Sattler C, Uthes S, Zander P (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environ Sci Policy 12(8):1122–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Qiu J, Turner MG (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(29):12149–12154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Qiu J, Turner MG (2015) Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed. Ecosphere 11(6):1–19Google Scholar
  53. Qiu Z, Dosskey MG (2012) Multiple function benefit—cost comparison of conservation buffer placement strategies. Landsc Urban Plan 107(2):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna.
  55. Ribaudo M (2015) The limits of voluntary conservation programs. Choices 30(2):1–5Google Scholar
  56. Rissman AR, Smail R (2015) Accounting for results: how conservation organizations report performance information. Envrion Manage 55(4):916–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salamon LM, Elliot OV (2002) The tools of government: a guide to the newgovernance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Shortle JS, Ribaudo M, Horan RD, Blandford D (2012) Reforming agricultural nonpoint pollution policy in an increasingly budget-constrained environment. Environ Sci Technol 46(3):1316–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Spalding RF, Exner ME (1993) Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater—a review. J Environ Qual 22(3):392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stedman RC, Lathrop RC, Clark B, Stedman RC, Lathrop RC, Clark B, Ejsmont-Karabin J, Kasprzak P, Nielsen K, Osgood D, Powell M, Ventelä AM, Webster KE, Zhukova A (2007) Perceived environmental quality and place attachment in North American and European temperate lake districts. Lake Reserv Manage 23(4):330–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strand Associates (2013) Yahara CLEAN engineering report for Clean Lakes Alliance. Madison.
  62. Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural resource Management. Year Ecol Conserv Biol 1162(1):265–283Google Scholar
  63. Uriarte M, Yacklic CB, Lim Y, Arce-Nazario JA (2011) Influence of land use on water quality in a tropical landscape: a multi-scale analysis. Landscape Ecol 26:1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van der Horst D (2007) Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions: the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J Environ Manage 85(4):1076–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Wardropper CB, Chang CY, Rissman AR (2015) Fragmented water quality governance: constraints to spatial targeting for nutrient reduction in a Midwestern USA watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 137:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warren PS, Ryan RL, Lerman SB, Tooke KA (2011) Social and institutional factors associated with land use and forest conservation along two urban gradients in Massachusetts. Landsc Urban Plan 102(2):82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winter TC (1999) Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands to groundwater flow systems. Hydrogeol J 7(1):28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):999–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17(4):355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wunscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65(4):822–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Young OR, Lambin EF, Alcock F, Haberl H, Karlsson SI, McConnell WJ, Myint T, Pahl-Wostl C, Polsky C, Ramakrishnan PS, Schroeder H, Scouvart M, Verburg PH (2006) A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human–environment interactions: institutions and land change. Ecol Soc 11(2):31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Nelson Institute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations