Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning

Abstract

Context

Data for biophysically modeled and Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS)-derived cultural ecosystem services have potential to identify natural resource management synergies and conflicts, but have rarely been combined. Ecosystem service hot/coldspots generated using different methods vary in their spatial extent and connectivity, with important implications.

Objectives

We map biophysically modeled and PPGIS-derived cultural services for six U.S. national forests using six hot/coldspot delineation methods. We evaluate the implications of hotspot methods for management within and outside of designated wilderness areas.

Methods

We used the ARIES and SolVES modeling tools to quantify four biophysically modeled and 11 largely cultural ecosystem services for six national forests in Colorado and Wyoming, USA. We mapped hot/coldspots using two quantile methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of values), two area-based methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of area), and two statistical methods (Getis-Ord Gi* at α = 0.05 and 0.10 significance level) and compare results within and outside wilderness areas.

Results

Delineation methods vary in their degree of conservatism for hot/coldspot extents and spatial clustering. Hotspots were more common in wilderness areas in national forests near the more densely populated Colorado Front Range, while coldspots were more common in wilderness areas in more urban-distant forests in northwest Wyoming.

Conclusions

Statistical hotspot methods of intermediate conservatism (i.e., Getis-Ord Gi*, α = 0.10 significance) may be most useful for ecosystem service hot/coldspot mapping to inform landscape scale planning. We also found spatially explicit evidence in support of past findings about public attitudes toward wilderness areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G (2008) Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ARIES Consortium (2016) ARIES—artificial intelligence for ecosystem services, rocky mountains case study. http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/?project=rocky-mountains-case-study. Accessed 5 Jul 2016

  3. Bagstad KJ, Reed JM, Semmens DJ, Sherrouse BC, Troy A (2015) Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: a case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Reg Environ Chang. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0756-7

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bai Y, Zhuang C, Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Jiang B (2011) Spatial characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated watershed. Ecol Complex 8:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bourassa SC, Hoesli M, Sun J (2004) What’s in a view? Environ Plan A36:1427–1450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown G (2012) Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA J 25:7–18

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brown G, Alessa L (2005) A GIS-based inductive study of wilderness values. Int J Wilderness 11:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown G, Brabyn L (2012) The extrapolation of social landscape values to a national level in New Zealand using landscape character classification. Appl Geogr 35:84–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown G, Donovan S (2014) Measuring change in place values for environmental and natural resource planning using public participation GIS (PPGIS): results and challenges for longitudinal research. Soc Nat Resour 27(1):36–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 13:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown TC, Hobbins MT, Ramirez JA (2008) Spatial distribution of water supply in the coterminous United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:1474–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K (2012) Public Participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour 25:633–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown G, Pullar D, Hausner VH (2016) An empirical evaluation of spatial value transfer methods for identifying cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 69:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown G, Reed P (2009) Public participation GIS: a new method for use in National Forest planning. For Sci 55:166–182

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brown G, Weber D (2013) Using public participation GIS (PPGIS) on the Geoweb to monitor tourism development preferences. J Sustain Tour 21(2):192–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D (2011) Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 25:172–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jorgensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan KMA, Goldstein J, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Kikiloi K, Naidoo R, Vadeboncoeur N, Woodside U (2011) Cultural services and non-use values. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–228

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clement JM, Cheng AS (2011) Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes, and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl Geogr 31:393–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Clement JP, Belin AD, Bean MJ, Boling TA, Lyons JR (2014) A strategy for improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: a report to the Secretary of the Interior from the energy and climate change task force. U.S Department of the Interior, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cordell HK, Tarrant MA, McDonald BL, Bergstrom JC (1998) How the public views wilderness: more results from the USA survey on recreation and the environment. Int J Wilderness 4:31

    Google Scholar 

  24. Council on Environmetnal Quality (CEQ) (2015) Memorandum M-16-01: incorporating ecosystem services into Federal Decision Making. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2016

  25. Czaja M, Cottrell SP (2014) Integrating social science research into wildland fire management. Disaster Prev Manag 23:381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe R, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8812–8819

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dunn CE (2007) Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Prog Hum Geogr 31:616–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Durant JO, Shumway JM (2004) Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: a survey of six southeastern Utah counties. Environ Manag 33:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Egoh BN, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM (2011) Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands. J Environ Manag 92:1642–1650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudik M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. ESP Maps (2014) The Ecosystem Services Partnership visualization tool: an interactive knowledge platform for ecosystem service maps. http://esp-mapping.net/HOME/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016

  34. Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24:189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gimona A, van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecol 22:1255–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hauck J, Gorg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamaki O, Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K (2013) “Maps have an air of authority”: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst Serv 4:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hermans C, Erickson JD (2007) Multicriteria decision analysis: Overview and implications for environmental decision making. In: Erickson JD, Messner F, Ring I (eds) Ecological economics of sustainable watershed management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 213–228

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) (2011) Natural Capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  39. Karimi A, Brown G, Hockings M (2015) Methods and participatory approaches for identifying social-ecological hotspots. Appl Geogr 63:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kellndorfer J, Walker W, LaPoint E, Bishop J, Cormier T, Fiske G, Hoppus M, Kirsch K, Westfall J (2012) NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline Data (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000. http://whrc.org/publications-data/datasets/national-biomass-and-carbon-dataset/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016

  41. Law EA, Bryan BA, Meijaard E, Mallawaarachchi T, Struebig M, Wilson KA (2015) Ecosystem services from a degraded peatland of Central Kalimantan: implications for policy, planning, and management. Ecol Appl 25:70–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Martinez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McIntyre N, Moore J, Yuan M (2008) A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc Nat Resour 21:657–670

    Google Scholar 

  44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living beyond our means—natural assets and human well-being. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Eigenbrod F, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gillings S, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ, Thomas CD (2011) Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol Appl 21(5):1419–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mouchet MA, Lamarque P, Martin-Lopez B, Crouzat E, Gos P, Byczek C, Lavorel S (2014) An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 28:298–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Naidoo R, Ricketts T (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4:2153–2164

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. National Ecosystem Services Partnership (2014) Federal resource management and ecosystem services guidebook. https://nespguidebook.com/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016

  50. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016) Soil Survey Geographic Database. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Accessed 27 Mar 2016

  51. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (2016) MODIS GPP/NPP Project. http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/mod17. Accessed 27 Mar 2016

  52. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Facker P, Lonsdorf E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalske C (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ, Carroll AL, Hicke JA, Turner MG, Romme WH (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58:501–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1996) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Handbook 703. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rolston H, Coufal J (1991) A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. J For 89:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rudzitis G (1999) Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schaefer M, Goldman E, Bartuska AM, Sutton-Grier A, Lubchenco J (2015) Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7383–7389

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Romme WH (2004) The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. Bioscience 54:661–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Schröter M, Remme RP (2016) Spatial prioritization for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimization. Landscape Ecol 31:431–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31:748–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ (2014) Validating a method for transferring social values of ecosystem services between public lands in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecosyst Serv 8:166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ (2015) Social values for ecosystem services, Version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0)—Documentation and user manual. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1008. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

  64. Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM (2014) An application of social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Indic 36:68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sieber R (2006) Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96:491–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM (2015) Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess 55:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  68. Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Johnson GW, Portela R, Honzak M, Batker D (2014) A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS One 9:e91001

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Watson AE, Venn T (2012) Wilderness ecosystem services: a focus on applications. Int J Wilderness 18:3

    Google Scholar 

  70. Whitehead AL, Kujala H, Ives CD, Gordon A, Lentini PE, Wintle BA, Nicholson E, Raymond C (2014) Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 28(4):992–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Martin TG, Grantham HS (2010) Key concepts. In: Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (eds), Marxan good practices handbook, version 2. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Victoria, pp 18–23

  72. Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for ecosystem services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65:822–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhu X, Pfueller S, Whitelaw P, Winter C (2010) Spatial differentiation of landscape values in the Murray River region of Victoria, Australia. Environ Manag 45:896–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this work was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Land Change Science program. Brian Voigt, Ferdinando Villa, James Reed, Gary Johnson, and students participating in a graduate-level ecosystem services modeling course taught in the University of Denver’s Department of Geography in the fall of 2011 assisted with ARIES model development. We thank Jessica Clement for sharing survey data from the BT, PSI, and SNF national forests, and Stuart Cottrell, Mike Czaja, and Jessica Clement for their work in collecting survey data from the AR, MBR, and WR national forests. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth J. Bagstad.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 3147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Ancona, Z.H. et al. Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning. Landscape Ecol 32, 77–97 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0430-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • ARIES
  • Cultural ecosystem services
  • Hotspot analysis
  • Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS)
  • SolVES
  • Wilderness