IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i2p346-d129255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Applicability of Commonly Used Hydrological Ecosystem Services Models for Integrated Decision-Support

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Lüke

    (Section of Engineering Hydrology and Water Management, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

  • Jochen Hack

    (Institute of Applied Geosciences, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

Abstract

Different simulation models are used in science and practice in order to incorporate hydrological ecosystem services in decision-making processes. This contribution compares three simulation models, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, a traditional hydrological model and two ecosystem services models, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs model and the Resource Investment Optimization System model. The three models are compared on a theoretical and conceptual basis as well in a comparative case study application. The application of the models to a study area in Nicaragua reveals that a practical benefit to apply these models for different questions in decision-making generally exists. However, modelling of hydrological ecosystem services is associated with a high application effort and requires input data that may not always be available. The degree of detail in temporal and spatial variability in ecosystem service provision is higher when using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool compared to the two ecosystem service models. In contrast, the ecosystem service models have lower requirements on input data and process knowledge. A relationship between service provision and beneficiaries is readily produced and can be visualized as a model output. The visualization is especially useful for a practical decision-making context.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Lüke & Jochen Hack, 2018. "Comparing the Applicability of Commonly Used Hydrological Ecosystem Services Models for Integrated Decision-Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:346-:d:129255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/346/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/346/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gassman, Philip W. & Reyes, Manuel R. & Green, Colleen H. & Arnold, Jeffrey G., 2007. "The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions," ISU General Staff Papers 200701010800001027, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jochen Hack, 2015. "Application of payments for hydrological ecosystem services to solve problems of fit and interplay in integrated water resources management," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5-6), pages 929-948, September.
    3. Paul J. Crutzen, 2002. "Geology of mankind," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6867), pages 23-23, January.
    4. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    5. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    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. Hanlie Malherbe & Stephan Pauleit & Carsten Lorz, 2019. "Mapping the Loss of Ecosystem Services in a Region Under Intensive Land Use Along the Southern Coast of South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Jamroon Srichaichana & Yongyut Trisurat & Suwit Ongsomwang, 2019. "Land Use and Land Cover Scenarios for Optimum Water Yield and Sediment Retention Ecosystem Services in Klong U-Tapao Watershed, Songkhla, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Nedkov, Stoyan & Campagne, Sylvie & Borisova, Bilyana & Krpec, Petr & Prodanova, Hristina & Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Hristova, Desislava & Le Clec'h, Solen & Santos-Martin, Fernando & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2022. "Modeling water regulation ecosystem services: A review in the context of ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Fernando Chapa & Srividya Hariharan & Jochen Hack, 2019. "A New Approach to High-Resolution Urban Land Use Classification Using Open Access Software and True Color Satellite Images," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.

    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. Gang Sun Kim & Chul-Hee Lim & Sea Jin Kim & Jongyeol Lee & Yowhan Son & Woo-Kyun Lee, 2017. "Effect of National-Scale Afforestation on Forest Water Supply and Soil Loss in South Korea, 1971–2010," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    3. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    4. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    5. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    6. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Lee, Jongyeol & Lim, Chul-Hee & Kim, Gang Sun & Markandya, Anil & Chowdhury, Sarwat & Kim, Sea Jin & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Son, Yowhan, 2018. "Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 40-46.
    8. Pamela Kaval & Marjan van den Belt, 2017. "The Organizing Framework of Ecosystem Services and its use in River Management," Working Papers in Economics 17/22, University of Waikato.
    9. Veerkamp, C.J. & Loreti, M. & Benavidez, R. & Jackson, B & Schipper, A.M., 2023. "Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Tommaso Luzzati & Angela Parenti & Tommaso Rughi, 2017. "Spatial error regressions for testing the Cancer-EKC," Discussion Papers 2017/218, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    13. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    14. Egbendewe-Mondzozo, Aklesso & Swinton, Scott M. & Bals, Bryan D. & Dale, Bruce E., 2011. "Can Dispersed Biomass Processing Protect the Environment and Cover the Bottom Line for Biofuel?," Staff Paper Series 119348, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    16. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    17. Andersson, Jafet C.M. & Zehnder, Alexander J.B. & Rockström, Johan & Yang, Hong, 2011. "Potential impacts of water harvesting and ecological sanitation on crop yield, evaporation and river flow regimes in the Thukela River basin, South Africa," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(7), pages 1113-1124, May.
    18. Hongxing Liu & Wendong Zhang & Elena Irwin & Jeffrey Kast & Noel Aloysius & Jay Martin & Margaret Kalcic, 2020. "Best Management Practices and Nutrient Reduction: An Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model of the Western Lake Erie Basin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(4), pages 510-530.
    19. Alan F. Hamlet & Nima Ehsani & Jennifer L. Tank & Zachariah Silver & Kyuhyun Byun & Ursula H. Mahl & Shannon L. Speir & Matt T. Trentman & Todd V. Royer, 2024. "Effects of climate and winter cover crops on nutrient loss in agricultural watersheds in the midwestern U.S," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Yates, Andrew J. & Doyle, Martin W. & Rigby, J.R. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2013. "Market power, private information, and the optimal scale of pollution permit markets with application to North Carolina's Neuse River," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 256-276.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:346-:d:129255. 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.