Comparative Study of Ecosystem Hydrological Services Modeling Tools

Document Type : Methodologies

Author

• Mostafa Keshtkar

Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/jwsd.v6i2.81066

Abstract

Ecosystem services modeling has been the focus over the past two decades as a solution to reduce the problems caused by unstable management of natural resources and water-related ecosystem services are among the most studied. There are two types of ecosystem hydrological services modeling include traditional hydrological softwares and specialized softwares of ecosystem services. The present study introduces and compares some softwares according to required data for run the model, ease of use, ability to answer the questions and interpretation the results. SWAT and VIC are examples of traditional softwares with an emphasis on constructive processes of ecosystem services, while InVEST and ARIES are specialized ecosystem services softwares with an emphasis on spatial visualization of these services at the landscape level. If the appropriate data and required expertise are available to implement the model, SWAT and VIC softwares are suggested that can provide more information and details to the user such as evapotranspiration, surface runoff, subsurface flow, sediment load, nitrate and total phosphorus. While InVEST and ARIES softwares are more suitable for non-specialists and they are able to provide a general picture of ecosystem services with less data.

Keywords

• Water Production
• Flood Control
• Soil Retention
• SWAT
• InVEST
• ARIES

---

References

عارفی اصل، ا. 1390. ارزیابی کارایی مدل SWAT در برآورد فرسایش و ارائه سناریوهای حفاظتی مناسب (مطالعه موردی حوضه آبخیز چهل چای استان گلستان). پایان‏نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان.

ماهینی، س. و کامیاب، ح. 1388. سنجش از دور و سامانه اطلاعات جغرافیایی کاربردی با نرم‏افزار ایدریسی. جلد1: انتشارات مهر مهدیس. تهران.

Boyd J. and Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2): 616-626.

Burkhard B., Kroll F., Nedkov S. and Müller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21(1): 17-29

Burkhard B. and Maes J. 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria. Pensoft.

Costanza R., D’Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S .,ONeill R. V., Paruelo J., Raskin R. G., Sutton P. and Van Den Belt M. 1997. The Value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260.

Daily G., Postel S., Bawa K., Kaufman L., Peterson C.H., Carpenter S., Tillman D., Dayton P., Alexander S. and Lagerquist K. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence On Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.

De Groot R. S.1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff BV.

De Groot R.S., Wilson M.A. and Boumans R.M. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3): 393-408.

Fisher B., Turner R. K. and Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68(3): 643-653.

Gould R.K. and Lincoln N.K. 2017. Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching. Ecosystem services, 25: 117-127.‏

Liang X., Lettenmaier D. P., Wood E. F. and Burges S. J. 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ALL SERIES, 99: 14-415.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios: findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Island Press. Washington D.C.

Neitch S.L., Arnold J.G. Kiniry J.R. Williams J.R. 2005. Soil and Water Assessment Tool; Theoretical Documentation. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Blackland Research Center. Temple, TX.

Seppelt R., Dormann C.F., Eppink F.V., Lautenbach S. and Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of applied Ecology, 48(3): 630-636.

Sharp R., Chaplin-Kramer R., Wood S., Guerry A., Tallis H. and Ricketts T.H. 2014. InVEST user’s guide: integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs. The Natural Capital Project. In In Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, the Nature Conservancy & WW Foundation Stanford.

Kumar P. 2010. TEEB, the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.

Vigerstol K.L. and Aukema J.E. 2011. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of environmental management, 92(10): 2403-2409.

Villa F., Ceroni M., Bagstad K., Johnson G. and Krivovet S. 2009. ARIES (ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): A New Tool for Ecosystem Services Assessment, Planning, and Valuation. 11th International BIOECON Conference on Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Venice, Italy. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bioecon/11th_2009/Villa.pdf.

Westman W.E. 1977. How much are nature's services worth? Science, 197(4307): 960-964.