Quantification and Mapping of Flood Regulating Ecosystem Services in Different Watersheds – Case Studies in Bulgaria and Arizona, USA

  • Kremena Boyanova
  • Stoyan Nedkov
  • Benjamin Burkhard
Chapter

Abstract

There is great need for accurate and practical methods to assess the conditions of ecosystems, and the possible results of their interaction with social systems. The generation and interpretation of quantitative data for ecosystem service analysis is still not well established. Ecosystem service analyses demand an interdisciplinary approach that integrates knowledge with a high variety, and manifold verifications, of models and data. Maps seem to be the most preferable tool for the visualisation of results, being a comprehensive and intuitive tool for communication between decision makers and the general public. The following chapter presents an application and the verification of an approach for the quantification of flood regulating ecosystem services by using results from the watershed hydrological model KINEROS and the AGWA tool (Nedkov and Burkhard 2012). It is applied in six watersheds - three in Bulgaria and three in Arizona, USA, in order to check its reliability in case studies with differing geographic characteristics. The model results are used to define the capacities of the land cover classes in the different watersheds and to prepare flood regulating supply capacity maps. Capacities for flood regulation differ within the case studies and their land cover classes. Forests still show generally high capacities in both Bulgaria and Arizona, while grasslands and pastures in Bulgaria show higher capacities for flood regulation than in Arizona. The maps can provide valuable information for sustainable environmental management.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biao Z, Wenhua L, Gaodi X, Yu X (2010) Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics 69: 1416-1426Google Scholar
  2. Biao Z, Wenhua L, Gaodi X, Yu X (2010) Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics 69: 1416-1426Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw CJA, Sodhi NS, Peh KSH, Brook BW (2007) Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global Change Biology 13(11): 2379-2395; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x
  4. Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M (2012a) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21: 1-6Google Scholar
  5. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012b) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21: 17-29Google Scholar
  6. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes capacities to provide ecosystem services–a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15: 1-22Google Scholar
  7. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martin-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB, Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modeling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 4: 4-14Google Scholar
  8. 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. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272Google Scholar
  9. Guo Z, Gan Y (2002) Ecosystem function for water retention and forest ecosystem conservation in a watershed of the Yangtze River. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 599-614Google Scholar
  10. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013a) Interaction of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators – A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators 38: 54-78Google Scholar
  11. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013b) Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services 4: 47-59.Google Scholar
  12. Laurance WF (2007) Environmental science: Forests and floods. Nature 449: 409-410; doi:10.1038/449409a.
  13. Martinez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 8: 17-25Google Scholar
  14. Nedkov S, Nikolova M (2006) Modeling floods hazard in Yantra river basin. In: Proceedings from Balwois Conference, Ohrid, 23-26 May 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services – mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators 21:67-79Google Scholar
  16. Nikolova M, Nedkov S, Semmens D, Iankov S (2007) Environmental quality and landscape risk assessment in Yantra River Basin. In: Petrosillo I, Müller F, Jones KB, Zurlini G, Krauze K, Victorov S, Li BL, Kepner WG (eds) Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security. Springer, the Netherlands, p 202Google Scholar
  17. Nikolova M, Nedkov S, Nikolov V (2008) Modeling local dimensions of the climate change in Etropolska Stara Planina. In: Papers from the International conference Global Environmental Change: Challenges to Science and Society in the South Eastern Europe, Sofia, 19-21 May 2008Google Scholar
  18. Scott SN (2005) Implementing best management practices in hydrologic modeling using KINEROS and the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) Tool. Master’s Thesis, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona. 204pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kremena Boyanova
    • 1
  • Stoyan Nedkov
    • 1
  • Benjamin Burkhard
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography, National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and GeographyBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Institute for Natural Resource ConservationUniversity of KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations