Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among culturalecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains

Benson C. Sherrouse; Darius J. Semmens; Zachary H. Ancona; Nicole M. Brunner

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.003

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70190507

Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among culturalecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains

Benson C. Sherrouse·Darius J. Semmens·Zachary H. Ancona·Nicole M. Brunner

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Significant increases in outdoor recreation participants are projected over the next 50 years for national forests across the United States, with even larger increases possible for forests located in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Forest managers will be challenged to balance increasing demand for outdoor recreation with other ecosystem services. Future management needs could be better anticipated with information describing how and where stakeholders value these forests’ cultural ecosystem services, as well as how management might impact these values. We analyzed land-use change scenarios to quantify changes in aesthetic and recreational ecosystem service values and assessed trade-offs between these values relative to forest stakeholder groups defined by their attitudes regarding motorized recreation. We adapted the GIS tool, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES), for scenario analysis and applied it to two national forests in the Southern Rocky Mountains to examine impacts of road-network expansion on stakeholder values. Our approach allowed us to quantify changes in the spatial distribution and intensity of aesthetic and recreation values. Trade-off assessments between the two values indicated that areas of conflicting value changes were limited, even when accounting for different user groups. However, this approach could be an important means of conflict resolution for multi-use management.

Explore related subjects

Ecosystem Services Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 37° to 43° latitude; -110° to -104° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Benson C. Sherrouse, Darius J. Semmens, Zachary H. Ancona, Nicole M. Brunner. 2017. Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among culturalecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

The influence of tree canopy cover data choices on urban ecosystem accounting

Because urban landscapes are heterogeneous, the methods and spatial resolution used to depict the land surface greatly influence the representation of urban features. Land cover products such as tree canopy cover (TCC) are particularly sensitive to the methodology and resolution used in their creation. Differences in TCC mapping have implications on the outcomes of ecosystem service (ES) models, including those underlying natural capital accounting. Here, we quantify the sensitivity of physical rainfall interception and local climate regulation ES models for 189 U.S. cities to TCC inputs from four TCC products: a) National Land Cover Database (NLCD), b) Enhanced NLCD TCC, c) aggregated city-specific composite, and d) global tree canopy height dataset. We find both city-level and aggregate differences in TCC estimates, from a 38% decrease to a 3% increase relative to an aggregated high-resolution product. These differences result in up to 3% overestimations and 27% underestimation of rainfall interception and 2–56% underestimation of local climate regulation ES. City size, population, and greenness in addition to climatic variation drove differences between TCC products, and this variation requires users to carefully consider the choice of input data for any planned analysis. Though high-resolution data can offer greater nuance and accuracy, more limited spatiotemporal availability can hinder their usefulness for long-term monitoring applications such as natural capital accounting. The differences found in this study provide valuable insights for making informed decisions on data inputs for use in urban ecosystem research and for contextualizing model outcomes.

Contiguous United States↗

USGS2025

Interoperability for ecosystem service assessments: Why, how, who, and for whom?

Despite continued, rapid growth in the literature, the fragmentation of information is a major barrier to more timely and credible ecosystem services (ES) assessments. A major reason for this fragmentation is the currently limited state of interoperability of ES data, models, and software. The FAIR Principles, a recent reformulation of long-standing open science goals, highlight the importance of making scientific knowledge Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable . Critically, FAIR aims to make science more transparent and transferable by both people and computers . However, it is easier to make data and models findable and accessible through data and code repositories than to achieve interoperability and reusability. Achieving interoperability will require more consistent adherence to current technical best practices and, more critically, to build consensus about and consistently use semantics that can represent ES-relevant phenomena. Building on recent examples from major international initiatives for ES (IPBES, SEEA, GEO BON), we illustrate strategies to address interoperability, discuss their importance, and describe potential gains for individual researchers and practitioners and the field of ES. Although interoperability comes with many challenges, including greater scientific coordination than today’s status quo, it is technically achievable and offers potentially transformative advantages to ES assessments needed to mainstream their use by decision makers. Individuals and organizations active in ES research and practice can play critical roles in creating widespread interoperability and reusability of ES science. A representative community of practice targeting interoperability for ES would help advance these goals.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2025

The Benefits Knowledges Learning Framework: A tool for learning across diverse knowledge systems in ecosystem valuation

Sustainable and just environmental management depends on meaningful consideration of the plural values of nature, as they arise in association with diverse worldviews and understandings of well-being. To achieve value pluralism in decision-making, we must also attend to knowledge pluralism, in terms of recognizing the validity and decision relevance of a broader suite of knowledge forms that convey diverse understandings of well-being and benefit. In this article, we outline a social learning tool – the Benefits Knowledges Learning Framework – that supports expanded thinking about decision-relevant, actionable knowledge, and the associated spectrum of available opportunities to learn from these diverse knowledge forms across phases of decision-making. It does so through: 1) cultivation of reflexivity and mutual learning about the knowledge systems of diverse actors involved in the decision process; 2) identification of diverse benefits knowledge forms that are available to inform decision-making; and 3) identification of opportunities to learn from these knowledge forms. Diverse forms of benefits knowledge include both knowledge products (documentation) and knowledge practices (lived and embodied). The framework can be applied to retrospective case analysis to understand and learn from constraints and enabling factors in past decision processes. It can also be applied to assess on-going decision-making and identify current opportunities for improvement. The framework begins with a start-up phase that encourages those applying the framework to address any concerns raised by stakeholders and rightsholders and determine whether framework application is appropriate in a particular context.

Washington↗