Abstract
Policy makers and scientists consider that land use strategies are designed to provide direct benefits to people by protecting vital ecosystem services. However, due to lack of information and evaluation methods, there is no effective and systematic tool for assessing tradeoffs between direct human benefits and ecosystem services. Land use changes influence ecosystem properties, processes and components, which are the basis for providing services. Five alternative land use scenarios (no conversion of agricultural lands, no urban expansion, agricultural expansion, forestry expansion, and riparian reforestation) were modeled for the Baiyangdian watershed, China, a densely populated, highly modified watershed with serious water shortage and pollution problems. The model InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is designed to inform decisions about natural resource management, with an aim to align economic forces with conservation. Three ecosystem services (agricultural production, hydropower production, and water quality) were modeled to balance direct benefits and hydrological ecosystem services using InVEST. The results showed that: hydropower production was the greatest in the forestry expansion, but the lowest in agricultural expansion; agricultural production was reduced the most in forestry expansion, while retained the most in riparian reforestation. Riparian reforestation also provided the highest N and P retention and lowest N and P exportation. Riparian reforestation was the optimal land use strategy, since it protected and enhanced the vital ecosystem services without undermining direct human benefits. This research presents an initial analytical framework for integrating direct human benefits and ecosystem services in policy planning and illustrates its application. Although there are important potential tradeoffs between ecosystem services, this systematic planning framework offers a means for identifying valuable synergies between conservation and development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Balvanera P, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Ricketts TH, Bailey SA, Kark S, Kremen C, Pereira H (2001) Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science 291:2047
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Levitt EA (2005) Looking to the future ecosystem services. Ecosystems 8:125–132
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404
Blashke T (2005) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):198–226
Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379
Chen NW, Li HC, Wang LH (2009) A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: management implications. Ecol Econ 68:2768–2776
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260
Daily GC, Soderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson A, Jansson BO, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Maler KG, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B (2000) Ecology—the value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289(5478):395–396
Daily G, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision-making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28
de Groot R, Wilson MA, Boumans MR (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
de Groot 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(3):260–272
Dolinar N, Rudolf M, Sraj N, Gaberscik A (2010) Environmental changes affect ecosystem services of the intermittent Lake Cerknica. Ecol Complex 7(3):403–409
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
Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson DM (2009) Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Conserv 142:553–562
Gimona A, Van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landsc Ecol 22:1255–1264
Gordon CLJ, Max F, Malin F (2010) Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agric Water Manag 97:512–519
Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid W (2008) Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J Environ Manag 89(3):197–208
Haines-Young R, Watkins C, Wale C, Murdock A (2006) Modelling natural capital: the case of landscape restoration on the South Downs, England. Landsc Urban Plan 75:244–264
Jackson RB, Carpenter SR, Dahm CN, McKnight DM, Naiman RJ, Postel SL, Running SW (2001) Water in a changing world. Ecol Appl 11:1027–1045
Krishnaswamy J, Bawa KS, Ganeshaiah KN, Kiran MC (2009) Quantifying and mapping biodiversity and ecosystem services: utility of a multi-season NDVI based Mahalanobis distance surrogate. Remote Sens Environ 113:857–867
Lant CL, Ruhl JB, Kraft SE (2008) The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience 58(10):969–974
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253
Menon S, Bawa KS (1997) Applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Curr Sci 73:134–145
Meyer BC, Grabaum R (2008) MULBO—model framework for multi criteria landscape assessment and optimisation. A support system for spatial land use decisions. Landsc Res 33:155–179
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. World Resource Institute Island Press, Washington, DC
Naidoo R, Ricketts TH (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4:e360
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9495–9500
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily G, Goldstein J, Kareiva P, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11
Ramesh BR, Menon S (1997) Map of Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, vegetation types and land use. French Institute, Pondicherry
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
Stork NE, Samways MJ (1995) Inventorying and monitoring. In: Heyward VH (ed) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge Press, New York, pp 453–543
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Ennaanay D, Nelson E, Vigerstol K, Mendoza G, Wolny S, Olwero N, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D (2008) InVEST 1.003 beta User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford
Tilman D (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5995–6000
Vitousek PM, Monney HA, Lubchenco J, Melilo J (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499
Yang WH, Brett AB, Darla HM, John RW, Geoff W, Neville DC, Jeffrey DC (2010) A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Econ 69:680–689
Yapp G, Walker J, Thackway R (2010) Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecol Complex 7(3):292–301
Zhang B, Li W, Xie GD (2010) Ecosystem services research in China: progress and perspective. Ecol Econ 69(7):1389–1395
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2009CB421105), the International Cooperation Program of the Chinese Academy of Science (Grant No. GJHZ0948) and Special Fund in the Public Interest of Ministry of Land Resources of the People’s Republic of China (201011018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bai, Y., Zheng, H., Ouyang, Z. et al. Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China. Environ Earth Sci 70, 709–718 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2154-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2154-5