Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Climate Services”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2022

When do climate services achieve societal impact? Evaluations of actionable climate adaptation science

To cope with complex environmental impacts in a changing climate, researchers are increasingly being asked to produce science that can directly support policy and decision making. To achieve such societal impact, scientists are using climate services to engage directly with stakeholders to better understand their needs and inform knowledge production. However, the wide variety of climate-services outcomes—ranging from establishing collegial relationships with stakeholders to obtaining specific information for inclusion into a pre-existing decision process—do not directly connect to traditional methods of measuring scientific impact (e.g., publication citations, journal impact factor). In this paper, we describe how concepts from the discipline of evaluation can be used to examine the societal impacts of climate services. We also present a case study from climate impacts and adaptation research to test a scalable evaluation approach. Those who conduct research for the purposes of climate services and those who fund applied climate research would benefit from evaluation from the beginning of project development. Doing so will help ensure that the approach, data collection, and data analysis are appropriately conceived and executed.

Sustainability↗
USGS2015

Effects of harvesting forest biomass on water and climate regulation services: A synthesis of long-term ecosystem experiments in eastern North America

Demand for woody biomass fuels is increasing amidst concerns about global energy security and climate change, but there may be negative implications of increased harvesting for forest ecosystem functions and their benefits to society (ecosystem services). Using new methods for assessing ecosystem services based on long-term experimental research, post-harvest changes in ten potential benefits were assessed for ten first-order northern hardwood forest watersheds at three long-term experimental research sites in northeastern North America. As expected, we observed near-term tradeoffs between biomass provision and greenhouse gas regulation, as well as tradeoffs between intensive harvest and the capacity of the forest to remediate nutrient pollution. In both cases, service provision began to recover along with the regeneration of forest vegetation; in the case of pollution remediation, the service recovered to pre-harvest levels within 10 years. By contrast to these two services, biomass harvesting had relatively nominal and transient impacts on other ecosystem services. Our results are sensitive to empirical definitions of societal demand, including methods for scaling societal demand to ecosystem units, which are often poorly resolved. Reducing uncertainty around these parameters can improve confidence in our results and increase their relevance for decision-making. Our synthesis of long-term experimental studies provides insights on the social-ecological resilience of managed forest ecosystems to multiple drivers of change.

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, Neversink River↗
USGS2013

Climate-change impacts on ecological systems: Introduction to a US assessment

As part of the 2014 US National Climate Assessment, over 60 subject‐matter experts from government agencies, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector assessed the current and projected impacts of climate change on ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Here, we introduce and provide context for the papers included in this Special Issue, drawing upon the key findings from separate assessments of biodiversity, ecosystem structure and function, ecosystem services, climate‐change impacts in the context of other stressors, and societal responses to change (ie climate adaptation). We also explain the assessment process and show how the current state of knowledge can be used to identify risks and guide future research and management initiatives.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2007

Vegetation response to climate change in Alaska: examples from the fossil record

Preface: This report was presented as an invited paper at the Fish & Wildlife Service Climate Forum held in Anchorage, Alaska on February 21-23, 2007. The purpose of the talk was to provide some examples of past climate changes that appear to have caused significant responses in Alaskan vegetation. These examples are based on interpretations of dated fossil assemblages (pollen, spores and plant macrofossils) collected and interpreted by U.S. Geological Survey and collaborating scientists from other scientific organizations during the past several decades.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Disentangling the effects of climate and landscape change on bird population trends in the western U.S. and Canada

Changes in climate are often assumed result in changes to species’ ranges, with potential impacts on natural system functioning and ecosystem services. ‘Climate envelope models’, which rely on correlations between climate and species distributions, have been used to predict the future of biodiversity under these assumptions. However, other factors including land-cover, dispersal ability and interspecific competition and facilitation may play an important role in driving species distributions and population trends either alone or in combination with climate. In an ongoing project, we used long-term data on bird distributions and abundance to develop climate envelope and land-use models for 161 species in order to provide a multi-species test of the degree to which climate envelope versus land-use models are useful in predicting species distributions and population trends of birds in forest ecosystems of the western U.S. and Canada. Our results suggest that models describing associations between climatic variables and abundance patterns can be used for some species to predict changes through time, and that changes in climate have already driven shifts in the geographic patterns of abundance of bird populations in western North America. For other species, models using land-use variables including raw remote-sensing variables may provide the best predictions for abundance change. The results of this research showing the reliability of models across multiple species will aid managers in understanding which species are most vulnerable to changes from climate, land-use change and their interaction.

Final Report↗
USGS2011

Natural resource mitigation, adaptation and research needs related to climate change in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert

This report synthesizes the knowledge, opinions, and concerns of many Federal and State land managers, scientists, stakeholders, and partners from a workshop, held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on April 20-22, 2010. Land managers, research scientists, and resource specialists identified common concerns regarding the potential effects of climate change on public lands and natural resources in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert and developed recommendations for mitigation, adaptation, and research needs. Water and, conversely, the effects of drought emerged as a common theme in all breakout sessions on terrestrial and aquatic species at risk, managing across boundaries, monitoring, and ecosystem services. Climate change models for the southwestern deserts predict general warming and drying with increasing precipitation variability year to year. Scientists noted that under these changing conditions the past may no longer be a guide to the future in which managers envision increasing conflicts between human water uses and sustaining ecosystems. Increasing environmental stress also is expected as a consequence of shifting ecosystem boundaries and species distributions, expansion of non-native species, and decoupling of biotic mutualisms, leading to increasingly unstable biologic communities. Managers uniformly expressed a desire to work across management and agency boundaries at a landscape scale but conceded that conflicting agency missions and budgetary constraints often impede collaboration. More and better science is needed to cope with the effects of climate change but, perhaps even more important is the application of science to management issues using the methods of adaptive management based on long-term monitoring to assess the merits of management actions. Access to data is essential for science-based land management. Basic inventories, spatial databases, baseline condition assessments, data quality assurance, and data sharing were identified as top information priorities by all participants at this workshop. Optimizing the utility of ecosystem monitoring data will require standardizing monitoring protocols across agencies. Better communication among researchers and managers and cooperation through partnerships to manage resources across boundaries were emphasized as necessary for adapting to changing climatic conditions. However, even these strategies may be insufficient unless policy mandates, agency missions, and funding are coordinated at a high level.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2018

Regional climate response collaboratives: Multi-institutional support for climate resilience

Federal investments by U.S. agencies to enhance climate resilience at regional scales grew over the past decade (2010s). To maximize efficiency and effectiveness in serving multiple sectors and scales, it has become critical to leverage existing agency-specific research, infrastructure, and capacity while avoiding redundancy. We discuss lessons learned from a multi-institutional “regional climate response collaborative” that comprises three different federally-supported climate service entities in the Rocky Mountain west and northern plains region. These lessons include leveraging different strengths of each partner, creating deliberate mechanisms to increase cross-entity communication and joint ownership of projects, and placing a common priority on stakeholder-relevant research and outcomes. We share the conditions that fostered successful collaboration, which can be transferred elsewhere, and suggest mechanisms for overcoming potential barriers. Synergies are essential for producing actionable research that informs climate-related decisions for stakeholders and ultimately enhances climate resilience at regional scales.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society↗
USGS2017

International Watershed Technology: Improving Water Quality and Quantity at the Local, Basin, and Regional Scales

This article introduces the five papers in the “International Watershed Technology” collection. These papers were selected from 60 technical presentations at the fifth biennial ASABE 21st Century Watershed Technology Conference and Workshop: Improving the Quality of Water Resources at Local, Basin, and Regional Scales, held in Quito, Ecuador, on 3-9 December 2016. The conference focused on solving spatial and temporal water quality and quantity problems and addressed topics such as watershed management in developing countries, aquatic ecology and ecohydrology, ecosystem services, climate change mitigation strategies, flood forecasting, remote sensing, and water resource policy and management. While diverse, the presentation topics reflected the continuing evolution of the “data mining” and “big data” themes of past conferences related to geospatial data applications, with increasing emphasis on practical solutions. The papers selected for this collection represent applications of spatial data analyses toward practical ends with a theme of “tools and techniques for sustainability.” The papers address a range of topics, including the matching of crops with water availability, and assessing the environmental impacts of agricultural production. The papers identify some of the latest tools and techniques for improving sustainability in watershed resource management that are relevant to both developing and developed countries.

Transactions of the ASABE↗
USGS2000

Geographic Information for Analysis of Highway Runoff-Quality Data on a National or Regional Scale in the Conterminous United States

Spatial data are important for interpretation of water-quality information on a regional or national scale. Geographic information systems (GIS) facilitate interpretation and integration of spatial data. The geographic information and data compiled for the conterminous United States during the National Highway Runoff Water-Quality Data and Methodology Synthesis project is described in this document, which also includes information on the structure, file types, and the geographic information in the data files. This 'geodata' directory contains two subdirectories, labeled 'gisdata' and 'gisimage.' The 'gisdata' directory contains ArcInfo coverages, ArcInfo export files, shapefiles (used in ArcView), Spatial Data Transfer Standard Topological Vector Profile format files, and meta files in subdirectories organized by file type. The 'gisimage' directory contains the GIS data in common image-file formats. The spatial geodata includes two rain-zone region maps and a map of national ecosystems originally published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; regional estimates of mean annual streamflow, and water hardness published by the Federal Highway Administration; and mean monthly temperature, mean annual precipitation, and mean monthly snowfall modified from data published by the National Climatic Data Center and made available to the public by the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University. These GIS files were compiled for qualitative spatial analysis of available data on a national and(or) regional scale and therefore should be considered as qualitative representations, not precise geographic location information.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Hydrologic Drought of Water Year 2006 Compared with Four Major Drought Periods of the 20th Century in Oklahoma

Water Year 2006 (October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2006) was a year of extreme hydrologic drought and the driest year in the recent 2002-2006 drought in Oklahoma. The severity of this recent drought can be evaluated by comparing it with four previous major hydrologic droughts, water years 1929-41, 1952-56, 1961-72, and 1976-81. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, completed an investigation to summarize the Water Year 2006 hydrologic drought and compare it to the four previous major hydrologic droughts in the 20th century. The period of water years 1925-2006 was selected as the period of record because before 1925 few continuous record streamflow-gaging sites existed and gaps existed where no streamflow-gaging sites were operated. Statewide annual precipitation in Water Year 2006 was second driest and statewide annual runoff in Water Year 2006 was sixth driest in the 82 years of record. Annual area-averaged precipitation totals by the nine National Weather Service Climate Divisions from Water Year 2006 are compared to those during four previous major hydrologic droughts to show how rainfall deficits in Oklahoma varied by region. Only two of the nine climate divisions, Climate Division 1 Panhandle and Climate Division 4 West Central, had minor rainfall deficits, while the rest of the climate divisions had severe rainfall deficits in Water Year 2006 ranging from only 65 to 73 percent of normal annual precipitation. Regional streamflow patterns for Water Year 2006 indicate that Oklahoma was part of the regionwide below-normal streamflow conditions for Arkansas-White-Red River Basin, the sixth driest since 1930. The percentage of long-term stations in Oklahoma (with at least 30 years of record) having below-normal streamflow reached 80 to 85 percent for some days in August and November 2006. Twelve long-term streamflow-gaging sites with periods of record ranging from 62 to 78 years were selected to show how streamflow deficits varied by region. The hydrologic drought worsened going from north to south in Oklahoma, ranging from 45 percent in the north, to just 14 percent in east-central Oklahoma, and 20 percent of normal annual streamflow in the southwest. The low streamflows resulted in only 86.3 percent of the statewide conservation storage available at the end of the water year in major reservoirs, and 7 to 47 percent of hydroelectric power generation at sites in Oklahoma in Calendar Year 2005.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

Hydrologic drought of water year 2011 compared to four major drought periods of the 20th century in Oklahoma

Water year 2011 (October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011) was a year of hydrologic drought (based on streamflow) in Oklahoma and the second-driest year to date (based on precipitation) since 1925. Drought conditions worsened substantially in the summer, with the highest monthly average temperature record for all States being broken by Oklahoma in July (89.1 degrees Fahrenheit), June being the second hottest and August being the hottest on record for those months for the State since 1895. Drought conditions continued into the fall, with all of the State continuing to be in severe to exceptional drought through the end of September. In addition to effects on streamflow and reservoirs, the 2011 drought increased damage from wildfires, led to declarations of states of emergency, water-use restrictions, and outdoor burning bans; caused at least $2 billion of losses in the agricultural sector and higher prices for food and other agricultural products; caused losses of tourism and wildlife; reduced hydropower generation; and lowered groundwater levels in State aquifers. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, conducted an investigation to compare the severity of the 2011 drought with four previous major hydrologic drought periods during the 20th century – water years 1929–41, 1952–56, 1961–72, and 1976–81. The period of water years 1925–2011 was selected as the period of record because few continuous record streamflow-gaging stations existed before 1925, and gaps in time existed where no streamflow-gaging stations were operated before 1925. In water year 2011, statewide annual precipitation was the 2d lowest, statewide annual streamflow was 16th lowest, and statewide annual runoff was 42d lowest of those 87 years of record. Annual area-averaged precipitation totals by the nine National Weather Service climate divisions from water year 2011 were compared to those during four previous major hydrologic drought periods to show how precipitation deficits in Oklahoma varied by region. The nine climate divisions in Oklahoma had precipitation in water year 2011 ranging from 43 to 76 percent of normal annual precipitation, with the Northeast Climate Division having the closest to normal precipitation and the Southwest Climate Division having the greatest percentage of annual deficit. Based on precipitation amounts, water year 2011 ranked as the second driest of the 1925–2011 period, being exceeded only in one year of the 1952 to 1956 drought period. Regional streamflow patterns for water year 2011 indicate that streamflow in the Arkansas-White-Red water resources region, which includes all of Oklahoma, was relatively large, being only the 26th lowest since 1930, primarily because of normal or above-normal streamflow in the northern part of the region. Twelve long-term streamflow-gaging stations with periods of record ranging from 67 to 83 years were selected to show how streamflow deficits varied by region in Oklahoma. Statewide, streamflow in water year 2011 was greater than streamflows measured in years during the drought periods of 1929–41, 1952–56, 1961–72, and 1976–81. The hydrologic drought worsened going from the northeast toward the southwest in Oklahoma, ranging from 140 percent (above normal streamflow) in the northeast, to 13 percent of normal streamflow in southwestern Oklahoma. The relatively low streamflow in 2011 resulted in 83.3 percent of the statewide conservation storage being available at the end of the water year in major reservoirs, similar to conservation storage in the preceding severe drought year of 2006. The ranking of streamflow as the 16th smallest for the 1925–2011 period, despite precipitation being ranked the 2d smallest, may have been caused, in part, by the relatively large streamflow in northeastern Oklahoma during water year 2011.

Oklahoma↗
USGS2012

Impacts of climate change on ecosystem services

Key Findings By 2050, climate change will triple the fraction of counties in the U.S. that are at high or extremely high risk of outstripping their water supplies (from 10 percent to 32 percent). The most at risk areas in the U.S. are the West, Southwest and Great Plains regions. Regulation of drinking water quality will be strained as high rainfall and river discharge conditions may lead to higher levels of nitrogen in rivers and greater risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. Climate change will have uneven effects on timber production across the U.S. Recent increases in tree mortality due to disease and pests, and the intensity of fires and area burned will continue to destroy productive forests. On the other hand, in some regions climate change is expected to boost overall forest productivity due to longer growing seasons. There is a better than 50 percent chance that climate change will overwhelm the ability of natural systems to mitigate the harm to people resulting from extreme weather events (such as heat waves, heavy rains, and drought). Vulnerability of people and property in coastal areas is highly likely to increase dramatically – due to the effects of sea-level rise, storm surge, and the loss of habitats that provide protection from flooding and erosion. The areas at greatest risk to coastal hazards in the U.S. are the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The human communities most vulnerable to climate-related increases in coastal hazards are the elderly and the poor who are less able to respond quickly before and during hazards and to respond over the long term through relocation. Changes in abundance and ranges of commercially important marine fish are highly likely to result in loss of some local fisheries, and increases in value for others if fishing communities and management practices can adapt. In recreation and tourism, the greatest negative climate impacts will continue to be felt in winter sports and beach recreation (due to coastal erosion). Other forms of recreation are highly likely to increase due to better weather, leading to a redistribution of the industry and its economic impacts, with visitors and tourism dollars shifting away from some communities in favor of others. Supporting, regulating, and provisioning ecosystem services all contribute to food security in the United States, and the fate of the nation’s food production are very likely to depend on the interplay of these services and how the agriculture and fishery sectors respond to climate stresses.

Book chapter↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: Mean Annual R-factor, 1971-2000

This data set represents the average annual R-factor, rainfall-runoff erosivity measure, compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data are from Christopher Daly of the Spatial Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State University, and George Taylor of the Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University (2002), who developed spatially distributed estimates of R-factor for the period 1971-2000 for the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: Mean Annual R-factor, 1971-2000

This tabular data set represents the average annual R-factor, rainfall-runoff erosivity measure, compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data are from Christopher Daly of the Spatial Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State University, and George Taylor of the Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University (2002). The ERF1_2 catchments are based on a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗
USGS2012

Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment

Ecosystems, and the biodiversity and services they support, are intrinsically dependent on climate. During the twentieth century, climate change has had documented impacts on ecological systems, and impacts are expected to increase as climate change continues and perhaps even accelerates. This technical input to the National Climate Assessment synthesizes our scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and what strategies might be employed to decrease current and future risks. Building on past assessments of how climate change and other stressors are affecting ecosystems in the United States and around the world, we approach the subject from several different perspectives. First, we review the observed and projected impacts on biodiversity, with a focus on genes, species, and assemblages of species. Next, we examine how climate change is affecting ecosystem structural elements—such as biomass, architecture, and heterogeneity—and functions—specifically, as related to the fluxes of energy and matter. People experience climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems as changes in ecosystem services; people depend on ecosystems for resources that are harvested, their role in regulating the movement of materials and disturbances, and their recreational, cultural, and aesthetic value. Thus, we review newly emerging research to determine how human activities and a changing climate are likely to alter the delivery of these ecosystem services. This technical input also examines two cross-cutting topics. First, we recognize that climate change is happening against the backdrop of a wide range of other environmental and anthropogenic stressors, many of which have caused dramatic ecosystem degradation already. This broader range of stressors interacts with climate change, and complicates our abilities to predict and manage the impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they support. The second cross-cutting topic is the rapidly advancing field of climate adaptation, where there has been significant progress in developing the conceptual framework, planning approaches, and strategies for safeguarding biodiversity and other ecological resources. At the same time, ecosystem-based adaptation is becoming more prominent as a way to utilize ecosystem services to help human systems adapt to climate change. In this summary, we present key findings of the technical input, focusing on themes that can be found throughout the report. Thus, this summary takes a more integrated look at the question of how climate change is affecting our ecological resources, the implications for humans, and possible response strategies. This integrated approach better reflects the impacts of climate in the real world, where changes in ecosystem structure or function will alter the viability of different species and the efficacy of ecosystem services. Likewise, adaptation to climate change will simultaneously address a range of conservation goals. Case studies are used to illustrate this complete picture throughout the report; a snapshot of one case study, 2011 Las Conchas, New Mexico Fire , is included in this summary.

Report↗
USGS2025

Climate change effects on ecosystem services: Disentangling drivers of mixed responses

Climate change is a pervasive hazard that impacts the supply and demand of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) that maintain human well-being. A recent review found that the impacts of climate change on EGS are sometimes mixed, posing challenges for managers who need to adapt to these changes. We expand on earlier work by exploring drivers of varying responses of EGS to climate within studies. We conducted a systematic review of English-language papers directly assessing climate change impacts on the supply, demand, or monetary value of ‘provisioning EGS’, ‘regulating EGS’, or ‘cultural EGS’. Ultimately, 44 papers published from December 2014 to March 2018 were analyzed. Nearly 66% of EGS were assessed for higher-income countries despite how lower-income countries disproportionately face negative climate impacts. Around 59% of observations or projections were mixed responses of EGS to climate change. Differences in climate impacts to EGS across space or climate scenarios were the most common causes of mixed responses, followed by mixed responses across time periods assessed. Disaggregating findings by drivers is valuable because mixed responses were often due to multiple drivers of variation. Carefully considering the decision context and desired outcome of a study will help select appropriate methodology to detect EGS variation. Although studies have often assessed relevant drivers of variation, assessing interactions of other sources of uncertainty and both climate and non-climate drivers may support more effective management decisions that holistically account for different values in the face of uncertainty.

PLoS↗
USGS2022

Analysis of provisioning ecosystem services and perceptions of climate change for indigenous communities in the Western Himalayan Gurez Valley, Pakistan

Climate change is a significant threat to people living in mountainous regions. It is essential to understand how montane communities currently depend especially on the provisioning ecosystem services (ES) and the ways in which climate change will impact these services, so that people can develop relevant adaptation strategies. The ES in the Gurez Valley, in the Western Himalayas of Pakistan, provide a unique opportunity to explore these questions. This understudied area is increasingly exposed not only to climate change but also to the overexploitation of resources. Hence, this study aimed to (a) identify and value provisioning ES in the region; (b) delineate indigenous communities’ reliance on ES based on valuation; and (c) measure the perceptions of indigenous communities of the impact of climate change on the ES in Gurez Valley. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were used to classify the provisioning ES by using the ‘Common International Classification on Ecosystem Services’ (CICES) table and applying the ‘Total Economic Valuation (TEV)’ Framework. Results indicate that the indigenous communities are highly dependent on ES, worth 6730 ± 520 USD/Household (HH)/yr, and perceive climate change as a looming threat to water, crops, and rearing livestock ESS in the Gurez Valley. The total economic value of the provisioning ES is 3.1 times higher than a household’s average income. Medicinal plant collection is a significant source of revenue in the Valley for some households, i.e., worth 766 ± 134.8 USD/HH/yr. The benefits of the sustainable use of ES and of climate change adaptation and mitigation, are culturally, economically, and ecologically substantial for the Western Himalayans.

Gurez Valley, Himalaya↗
USGS2015

Implications of climate and land use change

This chapter relates ecosystem services to climate change and land use. The bulk of the chapter focuses on ecosystem services and steepland land use in the humid Neotropics – what is lost with land-cover changed, and what is gained with various types of restoration that are sustainable given private ownership. Many case studies are presented later in the white paper. The USGS contribution relates to climate change and the role of extreme weather events in land-use planning.

Book chapter↗