IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v6y2017i3p48-d105064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Salata

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning—DIST, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli 39, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Gabriele Garnero

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning—DIST, Università degli studi di Torino, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli 39, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Carlo Alberto Barbieri

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning—DIST, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli 39, 10125 Torino, Italy)

  • Carolina Giaimo

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning—DIST, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli 39, 10125 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

Mapping ecosystem services (ES) increases the awareness of natural capital value, leading to building sustainability into decision-making processes. Recently, many techniques to assess the value of ES delivered by different scenarios of land use/land cover (LULC) are available, thus becoming important practices in mapping to support the land use planning process. The spatial analysis of the biophysical ES distribution allows a better comprehension of the environmental and social implications of planning, especially when ES concerns the management of risk (e.g., erosion, pollution). This paper investigates the nutrient retention model of InVEST software through its spatial distribution and its quantitative value. The model was analyzed by testing its response to changes in input parameters: (1) the digital terrain elevation model (DEM); and (2) different LULC attribute configurations. The paper increases the level of attention to specific ES models that use water runoff as a proxy of nutrient delivery. It shows that the spatial distribution of biophysical values is highly influenced by many factors, among which the characteristics of the DEM and its interaction with LULC are included. The results seem to confirm that the biophysical value of ES is still affected by a high degree of uncertainty and encourage an expert field campaign as the only solution to use ES mapping for a regulative land use framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Salata & Gabriele Garnero & Carlo Alberto Barbieri & Carolina Giaimo, 2017. "The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:6:y:2017:i:3:p:48-:d:105064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/6/3/48/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/6/3/48/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    2. Primmer, Eeva & Furman, Eeva, 2012. "Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92.
    3. Ana Barbosa & Sara Vallecillo & Claudia Baranzelli & Chris Jacobs-Crisioni & Filipe Batista e Silva & Carolina Perpiña-Castillo & Carlo Lavalle & Joachim Maes, 2017. "Modelling built-up land take in Europe to 2020: an assessment of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap measure on land," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1439-1463, August.
    4. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    5. Justin G. Ryan & Clive A. McAlpine & John A. Ludwig & John N. Callow, 2015. "Modelling the Potential of Integrated Vegetation Bands (IVB) to Retain Stormwater Runoff on Steep Hillslopes of Southeast Queensland, Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    7. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Bour, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Salata & Sila Ozkavaf-Senalp & Koray Velibeyoğlu & Zeynep Elburz, 2022. "Land Suitability Analysis for Vineyard Cultivation in the Izmir Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Nan Hu & Dong Xu & Ning Zou & Shuxin Fan & Peiyan Wang & Yunyuan Li, 2022. "Multi-Scenario Simulations of Land Use and Habitat Quality Based on a PLUS-InVEST Model: A Case Study of Baoding, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Xiaoliang Han & Peiyi Lv & Sen Zhao & Yan Sun & Shiyu Yan & Minghao Wang & Xiaona Han & Xiuru Wang, 2018. "The Effect of the Gully Land Consolidation Project on Soil Erosion and Crop Production on a Typical Watershed in the Loess Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Stefano Salata & Silvia Ronchi & Carolina Giaimo & Andrea Arcidiacono & Giulio Gabriele Pantaloni, 2021. "Performance-Based Planning to Reduce Flooding Vulnerability Insights from the Case of Turin (North-West Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Grazia Brunetta & Stefano Salata, 2019. "Mapping Urban Resilience for Spatial Planning—A First Attempt to Measure the Vulnerability of the System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Silvia Ronchi & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2018. "Adopting an Ecosystem Services-Based Approach for Flood Resilient Strategies: The Case of Rocinha Favela (Brazil)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Mengyao Li & Yong Zhou & Pengnan Xiao & Yang Tian & He Huang & Liang Xiao, 2021. "Evolution of Habitat Quality and Its Topographic Gradient Effect in Northwest Hubei Province from 2000 to 2020 Based on the InVEST Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    3. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    4. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    5. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    6. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    7. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    8. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Maria Giulia Cantiani & Clemens Geitner & Christine Haida & Federica Maino & Clara Tattoni & Daniele Vettorato & Marco Ciolli, 2016. "Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Conservation for a New Governance of Alpine Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Campbell, Elliott & Marks, Rachel & Conn, Christine, 2020. "Spatial modeling of the biophysical and economic values of ecosystem services in Maryland, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    13. Saarikoski, Heli & Jax, Kurt & Harrison, Paula A. & Primmer, Eeva & Barton, David N. & Mononen, Laura & Vihervaara, Petteri & Furman, Eeva, 2015. "Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 144-157.
    14. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    15. Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    17. Minmin Zhao & Zhibin He, 2018. "Evaluation of the Effects of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Service Values in the Upper Reaches of the Heihe River Basin, Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Karabulut, Armağan & Egoh, Benis N. & Lanzanova, Denis & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni & Pagliero, Liliana & Bouraoui, Fayçal & Aloe, Alberto & Reynaud, Arnaud & Maes, Joachim & Vandecasteel, 2016. "Mapping water provisioning services to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus in the Danube river basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 278-292.
    19. Hainz-Renetzeder, C. & Schneidergruber, A. & Kuttner, M. & Wrbka, T., 2015. "Assessing the potential supply of landscape services to support ecological restoration of degraded landscapes: A case study in the Austrian-Hungarian trans-boundary region of Lake Neusiedl," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 196-206.
    20. Longlong Tang & Kiyotada Hayashi & Kazunori Kohyama & Ai Leon, 2018. "Reconciling Life Cycle Environmental Impacts with Ecosystem Services: A Management Perspective on Agricultural Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:6:y:2017:i:3:p:48-:d:105064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.