Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Ecosystem Services for Urban Water Security pp 23–38Cite as

An Operational Approach for Watershed Investments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 209 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Geography ((BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY))

Abstract

This chapter focuses on Watershed Investments for securing water for cities. It starts with a brief account of the application of ecosystem services for decision-making and a theoretical background of boundary work. Accordingly, it proposes an operational approach developed for designing and assessing impact of watershed iInvestments to secure water for cities. The developed approach distinguishes between a “strategic” and a “technical” component. The strategic component identifies as key inputs of the process of Watershed Investment design and assessment, the definition of objectives and visioning of feasible and desirable scenarios by stakeholders. The technical component applies spatially explicit modelling to design Watershed Investments, hence to model the impacts on selected ecosystem services. The chapter concludes highlighting the potential of the approach to contribute to adaptive management in the urban water sector, by addressing the challenges of linking diverse stakeholders and knowledge system across management levels and institutional boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D (2017) Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: an approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D, Albert C (2017) Boundary work for implementing adaptive management: a water sector application. Sci Total Environ 593–594:274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90:1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Maes J (eds) (2017) Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E (2016) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:4615–4622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crona BI, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc 17:32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daw TM, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D (2013) Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D, Scolozzi R, Adem Esmail B (2018) Assessing ecosystem services and biodiversity tradeoffs across agricultural landscapes in a mountain region. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 14:188–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1526214

  • Geneletti D (2015) A conceptual approach to promote the integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 17:1550035. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D, Zardo L, Cortinovis C (2016) Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation: case studies in impact assessment for urban planning. In: Geneletti D (ed) Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GIZ, ICLEI (2014) Operationalizing the Urban NEXUS: towards resource-efficient and integrated cities and metropolitan regions. Eshborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, Ruckelshaus M, Bateman IJ, Duraiappah A, Elmqvist T, Feldman MW, Folke C, Hoekstra J, Kareiva PM, Keeler BL, Li S, McKenzie E, Ouyang Z, Reyers B, Ricketts TH, Rockström J, Tallis H, Vira B (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:201503751. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haase D, Frantzeskaki N, Elmqvist T (2014) Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: practical applications and governance implications. Ambio 43:407–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel P, Bremer LL, Ponette-González AG, Acosta E, Fisher JRB, Steele B, Cavassani AT, Klemz C, Blainski E, Brauman KA (2020) The value of hydrologic information for watershed management programs: the case of Camboriú, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ 135871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135871

  • Higgins J, Zimmerling A (2013) A primer for monitoring water funds. Global Freshwater Program. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang 28:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger T, Klemz C, Boucher T, Fisher JRB, Acosta E, Cavassani AT, Dennedy-Frank PJ, Garbossa L, Blainski E, Santos RC, Giberti S, Petry P, Shemie D, Dacol K (2019) Returns on investment in watershed conservation: application of a best practices analytical framework to the Rio Camboriú Water Producer Program, Santa Catarina. Brazil Sci Total Environ 657:1368–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lamorgese L, Geneletti D (2015) Equity in sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework. In: Handbook of sustainability assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 57–76. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471379.00009

  • Landsberg F, Treweek J, Stickler MM, Henninger N, Venn O (2013) Weaving ecosystem services into impact assessment. a step-by-step method (Version 1.0), 1.0. ed. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler JJ, Lewis DJ, Nelson E, Plantinga AJ, Polasky S, Withey JC, Helmers DP, Martinuzzi S, Pennington D, Radeloff VC (2014) Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:7492–7497. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405557111

  • Mandle L, Bryant BP, Ruckelshaus M, Geneletti D, Kiesecker JM, Pfaff A (2016) Entry points for considering ecosystem services within infrastructure planning: how to integrate conservation with development in order to aid them both. Conserv Lett 9:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Shemie D (2014) Urban water blueprint: mapping conservation solutions to the global water challenge. TNC, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison-Saunders A, Marshall R, Arts J (2007) EIA Follow-Up International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 6. Int. Assoc. Impact Assess

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve. Sweden Ecol Soc 12. https://doi.org/28

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagella TF, Sinclair FL (2014) Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landsc Ecol 29:383–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9983-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker J, Crona B (2012) On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42:262–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalske C (2008) Where to put things? spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily GC, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, Bernhardt JR (2015) Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ 115:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009

  • Sharp ER, Chaplin-Kramer R, Wood S, Guerry A, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Authors C, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Penning D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim C, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Mar M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M, Hamel P, Vogl AL, Rogers L, Bierbower W, Sharp C, Mandle M, User WI, Natural T, Project C (2015) InVEST 3.2.0 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project

    Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM (2015) Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour Econ 39:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogl A, Tallis H, Douglass J, Sharp R, Wolny S, Veiga F, Benitez S, León J, Game E, Petry P, Guimerães J, Lozano JS (2015) Resource investment optimization system (RIOS). In: Introduction and theoretical documentation. Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Blal Adem Esmail & Davide Geneletti

  2. Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Blal Adem Esmail

Authors
  1. Blal Adem Esmail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davide Geneletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blal Adem Esmail .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Adem Esmail, B., Geneletti, D. (2020). An Operational Approach for Watershed Investments. In: Ecosystem Services for Urban Water Security. SpringerBriefs in Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45666-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation