Spatial fit between water quality policies and hydrologic ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural landscape
- 1.2k Downloads
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.
KeywordsFreshwater 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).
- 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
- Biswas AK (2004) Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water Int 29(1):398–405Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ekstrom JA, Young OR (2009) Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol Soc 14(2):62Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Morris AW, Rissman AR (2009) Public access to information on private land conservation: tracking conservation easements. Wis Law Rev 2009:1237–1435Google Scholar
- Moss T (2012) Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecol Soc 17(3):2Google Scholar
- 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
- Owen D (2013) Mapping, modeling, and the fragmentation of environmental Law. Utah Law Review 2013(1):219–282Google Scholar
- Qiu J, Turner MG (2015) Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed. Ecosphere 11(6):1–19Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
- Ribaudo M (2015) The limits of voluntary conservation programs. Choices 30(2):1–5Google Scholar
- Salamon LM, Elliot OV (2002) The tools of government: a guide to the newgovernance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Strand Associates (2013) Yahara CLEAN engineering report for Clean Lakes Alliance. Madison. https://www.cleanlakesalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Strategic-Action-Plan-11092012.pdf
- 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
- Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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