2021 - Projecting Effects of Land Use Change On Human Well-Being Through Changes in Ecosystem Services

Ecological Modelling 440 (2021) 109358
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Modelling
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes

in ecosystem services
Susan H. Yee a, E. Paulukonis a, b, C. Simmons c, M. Russell a, R. Fulford a, L. Harwell a,
L.M. Smith a
a
Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL
32561, USA
b
Current address: Ecosystem Processes Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Athens, GA 30602, USA
c
General Dynamics Information Technology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Changing patterns of land use, temperature, and precipitation are expected to impact ecosystem services,
Human well-being index including water quality and quantity, buffering of extreme events, soil quality, and biodiversity. Scenario ana
Scenario analysis lyses that link such impacts on ecosystem services to human well-being may be valuable in anticipating potential
Ecosystem services
consequences of change that are meaningful to people living in a community. Ecosystem services provide
Relationship functions
Land use change
numerous benefits to community well-being, including living standards, health, cultural fulfillment, education,
and connection to nature. Yet assessments of impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being have largely
focused on human health or monetary benefits (e.g. market values). This study applies a human well-being
modeling framework to demonstrate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on multi-faceted
components of human well-being through changes in ecosystem services (i.e., ecological benefits functions).
The modeling framework quantitatively defines these relationships in a way that can be used to project the
influence of ecosystem service flows on indicators of human well-being, alongside social service flows and
economic service flows. Land use changes are linked to changing indicators of ecosystem services through the
application of ecological production functions. The approach is demonstrated for two future land use scenarios in
a Florida watershed, representing different degrees of population growth and environmental resource protection.
Increasing rates of land development were almost universally associated with declines in ecosystem services
indicators and associated indicators of well-being, as natural ecosystems were replaced by impervious surfaces
that depleted the ability of ecosystems to buffer air pollutants, provide habitat for biodiversity, and retain
rainwater. Scenarios with increases in indicators of ecosystem services, however, did not necessarily translate
into increases in indicators of well-being, due to covarying changes in social and economic services indicators.
The approach is broadly transferable to other communities or decision scenarios and serves to illustrate the
potential impacts of changing land use on ecosystem services and human well-being.
1. Introduction agriculture, and lead to alterations in biodiversity (Groffman et al.,

2014), with potential consequences for human well-being. Yet, studies
People often think about the more obvious market benefits of that have attempted to quantify well-being impacts of future develop
ecosystem goods and services, such as harvestable fish or timber, but ment, temperature, or precipitation scenarios have primarily focused
ecosystem services can have more subtle benefits that are equally toward economic losses (Speers et al., 2016; Tol 2018) or human health
important to community well-being, including wealth (Escobedo et al., impacts (McMichael et al., 2003; Luber et al., 2014), with consideration
2015), physical and mental health (Bell et al., 2008, Hendryx and of cultural, social, safety, education or other well-being impacts largely
Innes-Wimsatt 2013), culture and spirituality (Schaich et al., 2010), inferred, such as through expert working groups (Millennium Ecosystem
education (Louv 2005), and social connections (Kuo and Sullivan 2001). Assessment, 2005). Scenario models that link decision alternatives to
Changing patterns of land use, temperature, and precipitation, for human well-being, including those that impact ecosystem services, may
example, are expected to impact the ability of ecosystems to regulate be valuable in estimating potential benefits and trade-offs that are
water quality and quantity, reduce the ability of ecosystems to buffer meaningful to people living in a community (Summers et al., 2016).
extreme events, result in loss and degradation of soil and water assets for To be able to project human well-being outcomes, scenarios of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109358
Received 29 April 2019; Received in revised form 11 September 2020; Accepted 2 November 2020
Available online 14 November 2020
0304-3800/Published by Elsevier B.V.
S.H. Yee et al. Ecological Modelling 440 (2021) 109358
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of modeling approach, with available input data in gray boxes and modeled components in white boxes, connected by arrows repre
senting modeling functions. Ecosystem services are modelled as a function of forecast changes in environmental condition using ecological production functions
(EPFs). Human well-being domains (HWd) are modelled as a function of ecosystem (Ses), social (Ss), and economic (Sec) services using ecological benefits functions
(EBFs). Social and economic services are adjusted relative to changing ecosystem services through a covariance matrix. Data sources and spatial scale are in italics.
changing ecological condition can be linked to changing ecosystem relationships translates into uncertainty in well-being outcomes.
services through the application of ecological production functions Though demonstrated for two future land use scenarios in a Florida
(EPFs; Wainger and Mazzotta 2011). In turn, EPFs are commonly linked watershed, the approach is broadly transferable to other communities or
to market and non-market economic valuations through the application decision scenarios and serves to illustrate the potential impacts of
of economic and household production functions, which translate met changing land use on ecosystem services and human well-being.
rics of ecosystem service production to monetary values of benefit
(Bruins et al., 2017). Conceptually similar, the relative changes in 2. Methods
ecosystem services can also be linked to changes in human well-being
through ecological benefits functions (EBFs). Several efforts have been 2.1. Human well-being framework
undertaken to connect the provisioning of ecosystem services to in
dicators of well-being, paving the way for EBFs to project potential The HWBI modeling framework describes the relationships between
changes in human well-being (Gordon and Folke 2000; Pereira et al., indicators of ecosystem services, social services, economic services, and
2005; Pinto et al., 2014; Summers et al., 2016). indicators of human well-being (Summers et al., 2016). Human
Measures of human well-being can be represented as composite well-being is quantified as a multidimensional composite index (Human
indices that attempt to provide a comprehensive non-monetary measure Well-being Index, HWBI; Smith et al., 2012) representing eight domains
of human welfare by integrating metrics of wealth and health alongside of well-being—Connection to Nature, Cultural Fulfillment, Education,
other factors such as culture, safety, and social cohesion (Smith et al., Health, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Safety and Security, and Social
2012; Ferrara and Nistico 2015; Dyrbye et al., 2016). The advantages of Cohesion—that are considered globally applicable to human well-being
considering multiple types of well-being benefits is that such an (Smith et al., 2012, 2013) and broadly resonate with community sus
approach may be more closely aligned with what stakeholders care tainability goals (Fulford et al., 2016). Social, economic, and ecosystem
about rather than monetary measures (Fulford et al., 2016), and pro services all influence human well-being.
vides a flexible approach for simultaneously examining trade-offs across Social services, ecosystem services, economic services, and eight
multiple objectives. domains of well-being are each quantified by suites of indicators
Here we apply a modeling framework based on a composite well- composed of representative metrics (Smith et al., 2014a). Although
being index (Human Well-being Index, HWBI; Summers et al., 2016) originally developed at a county scale with nationally available data, the
to demonstrate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on HWBI framework was designed to be broadly applicable and flexible.
indicators of human well-being through projected changes in a suite of Integrity is maintained at the indicator-level, but metrics within each
ecosystem services indicators. The HWBI modeling framework quanti ecosystem service or HWBI indicator can be customized to suit data
tatively defines these relationships in a way that can be used to project availability or specific community context (Smith et al., 2012, 2014a),
the influence of ecosystem service flows on indicators of human including for example, American Indian Alaska Natives (Smith et al.,
well-being, alongside social service flows and economic service flows 2014c), children (Buck et al., 2018), and Puerto Rico (Orlando et al.,
(Fig. 1; Smith et al., 2014b; Summers et al., 2016). We use a suite of EPFs 2017).
to quantify likely changes in ecosystem services indicators resulting Both service and well-being metric data were previously developed
from changes in ecological condition. We assess which components of for counties within the United States from 2000 to 2010 and used to
changing ecological condition have the strongest influence on a suite of develop quantitative models describing the relationships between
well-being indicators, and explore how uncertainty in model aggregated indices of economic, social, and ecosystem services and
2
Table 1
Relationships between services indicators and domains of human well-being (EBFs), based on partial least squares regression models fitted to national indicator data
(from Summers et al., 2016). Where interactions among variables were significant in fitted models, variable relationships might be either positive or negative
depending on the magnitude of interacting variables.
Connection to Nature Cultural Fulfillment Education Health Leisure Time Living Standards Safety & Security Social Cohesion
Ecosystem Services
Air Quality +/- +
Food/Fiber/Fuel + + +
Greenspace – + + – +/-
Water Quality + – – +/- –
Water Quantity – + +/- + +
Economic Services
Capital Investment – +
Consumption + – – –
Employment – + –
Finance + +/- –
Innovation + + –
Production – – – –
Redistribution – + +/-
Social Services
Activism +/- + + +/- + –
Communication +/- + + +
Community Initiatives +/- +/- + +/- – + +/-
Education + + + –
Emergency Preparedness – + + –
Family Services + + +
Healthcare – –
domains of well-being (Table 1; Smith et al., 2014b; Summers et al., framework to investigate potential impacts of ecosystem services on
2016). The regression models can be used to project potential outcomes well-being under alternative development scenarios. We modeled
for human well-being domain scores as indicators of ecosystem services, changes in ecosystem services and human well-being for a set of existing
economic services, or social services are modified through the actions of scenarios of land use change and climate from 2010 to 2050, as devel
decision-makers (Summers et al., 2016). Because the HWBI framework oped by the FOREcasting Scenarios of Land use Change modeling
is based on aggregated indicators, the goal of the model is not to provide framework (FORE-SCE; Sohl et al., 2016; USGS 2016). Several models
precise predictions of change, but instead is intended as a exist for modeling future land use/land cover change (e.g., integrated
decision-making tool to investigate potential linkages between decision climate and land-use scenarios (ICLUS)), but most are limited to only
levers and overall well-being to stimulate conversation. few types of land use, such as urban development, or are more appro
In addition to the direct actions of decision-makers to modify service priate for specific local applications (Sohl et al., 2012), limiting our
availability, ecosystem services, in particular, may be impacted by ability to connect projected changes in future environmental condition
longer-term natural processes and anthropogenic decisions that alter the to ecosystem services at watershed scales. By comparison, the FORE-SCE
condition of the natural and built environment. Here, we use the HWBI projects spatially explicit maps of future land use/land cover, including
framework to explore how longer-term processes, such as changing land forest, developed space, wetlands, grassland, crops, pasture, and water,
use or weather patterns, may impact human well-being through changes based on extrapolations of historical change and nationally-relevant
in ecosystem services. For an example set of future scenarios, we apply scenarios of future socioeconomic and environmental conditions.
ecological production functions (EPFs; Fig. 1; Wainger and Mazzotta The FORE-SCE framework uses the Intergovernmental Panel on
2011) to model changes in ecosystem services in response to changing Climate Change (IPCC) A2 and B1 scenarios to describe and model so
land use/land cover and changing weather patterns over a 40 year cioeconomic and biophysical drivers of land use change. Each scenario
period. We then use the projected ecosystem services indicators as input implements a set of statistical and deterministic modeling techniques to
into ecological benefits functions (EBFs; Fig. 1), namely the services to project future land use change. The A2 scenario describes regionally
domain regression models (Summers et al., 2016), to link the changes in oriented economic development, slow and fragmented technological
ecosystem services indicators to changes in human well-being domain change, reliance on fossil fuel energy, increasing population growth, and
scores. low resource protection (Cubasch et al., 2001). The B1 scenario de
scribes globally oriented solutions to economic, social, and environ
mental sustainability, introduction of resource-efficient and renewable
2.2. Future scenarios of environmental conditions energy technologies, lower population growth, and a greater emphasis
on environmental protection. For each scenario, A2 or B1, we down
As an example demonstration study to develop the approach, we loaded forty-one raster maps representing each year from 2010 to 2050
investigated the potential impacts of changing land use/land cover, of projected land use/land cover that were used as input into our EPF
precipitation, and temperature on ecosystem services and human well- models to calculate ecosystem services indicators.
being for the Pensacola Bay watershed, Florida. In a prior workshop, Projected effects of future precipitation and temperature on land
Escambia County residents developed community sustainability goals, cover are already integrated into FORE-SCE projected land use/land
well-aligned with the eight HWBI domains of human well-being, and cover maps through statistical relationships used to forecast land cover
identified strategies to achieve those goals (Fulford et al., 2016). change (Sohl and Sayler 2008). In addition, in order to model changes in
Availability of ecosystem services is often overlooked compared to surface water flow with projected changes in land cover, we obtained
economic or social strategies, despite ecosystem services being linked to projected daily weather data, including precipitation, temperature,
economic stability, sense of place, human health, and safety (Smith windspeed, and humidity, from available projected data sets of future
et al., 2013). It is largely unknown how specific future development climate conditions (Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs, MACA;
scenarios might impact ecosystem services and well-being for the local Abatzoglou and Brown 2012; www.climatologylab.org). MACA uses a
community. Here, we demonstrate how the application of the HWBI
3
Fig. 2. Four counties within Florida’s Pensacola Bay watershed. Hydrological processes were modelled at the scale of stream catchment HRU polygons (fine black
lines). Ecosystem services metrics were calculated within IDU polygons (fine gray lines), scaled between zero and one, and then averaged to calculate a metric score
for each county.
statistical methodology to downscale a common set of Global Climate To conform with Envision’s polygon-based GIS maps, yearly FORE-
Models to a 4 km resolution. From 2010–2050, precipitation and tem SCE raster maps were converted to IDU polygons representing census
perature patterns are assumed to be reasonably similar between the A2 tracts in the Escambia Bay watershed of Florida (Fig. 2). The landuse/
and B1 scenarios (Cubasch et al. 2011), therefore we used a single time landcover class covering the majority of area in each IDU polygon was
series of projected climate data for both scenarios. assigned to that IDU polygon. In addition to majority land use, FORE-
We applied a suite of EPFs (e.g., Russell et al., 2013; Tallis et al., SCE raster maps were used to calculate area of water and area of for
2013; Fulford et al., 2016) to model how two alternate scenarios, A2 or est for each IDU polygon for each year of the simulation period. Because
B1, of changing land use and future weather patterns might impact population growth is not explicitly modeled by FORE-SCE, but is instead
production of ecosystem services, and then used these relative changes inferred through specified changes in developed area, we estimated
in ecosystem services as input into EBFs described by the HWBI services population change with changing land use by calculating an average
to domains regression models (Table 1; Summers et al., 2016) to assess population density for each land use/land cover type in the year 2010
potential impacts on human well-being under each scenario. Each sce (US Census Bureau, 2010) and projecting forward to subsequent years.
nario consisted of the forty-one FORE-SCE land use/land cover maps, The study area comprised 33,250 IDUs within four counties in Florida:
representing each year from 2010 to 2050, and corresponding projected Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton. IDU polygons were
daily weather data from 2010 to 2050. assigned to one of 3006 HRU polygons, defined by catchments obtained
from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD+). The IDU census tract
polygons were split as needed to assure that an IDU did not belong to
2.3. Spatially-explicit modeling platform more than one HRU, but an HRU could contain multiple IDUs (Fig. 2).
We used the Envision spatially-explicit modeling platform (Bolte and

Vache 2010; Bolte 2014) to run model simulations for each scenario. 2.4. Ecological production functions (EPFs)
Envision uses polygon-based GIS maps to model landscape change
processes and calculate yearly evaluative metrics. We developed the Ecological production functions were applied to translate projected
EPFs and EBFs (i.e., HWBI services to domain regression models, Sum changes in land use and weather data to a suite of ecosystem services
mers et al., 2016) as model plug-ins to Envision to calculate yearly indicators (Wainger and Mazzotta 2011; Russell et al., 2013; Tallis et al.,
changes in ecosystem services and human well-being in each spatial 2013). The ecological production functions, described in the following
polygon. Each polygon represents an integrated decision unit (IDU), sections, were implemented as model plug-ins within Envision (Bolte
which is the relevant spatial scale at which decisions or environmental 2014). Output from these models was then used as input into EBFs
processes are assumed to act. Models are run and evaluative metrics described by the HWBI services to domains regression models (Fig. 1;
calculated at the scale of each IDU. For our analysis, we identified an Summers et al., 2016).
IDU as a census tract, but split census tracts that were contained within The EPFs included in the model were selected based on their input
separate sub-watersheds. For Envision applications with a hydrological variable requirements aligning with projected environmental condition
component, IDU polygons may be grouped into hydrological response in future scenarios, and their output aligning with input needs for EBFs.
units (HRU), based on their connectivity to the same stream reach, for In many cases, EPFs were not available to model the exact ecosystem
implementing EPFs related to hydrological processes. services metrics in the original national HWBI (Smith et al., 2014a),
4
Table 2
Modelled metrics used as surrogates for the original HWBI ecosystem services metrics used in developing services to domains regression models (Summers et al., 2016).
HWBI Service Indicator Original HWBI Services Metrics Surrogate Modelled Metric
Air Quality
Usable Air -% days with good or moderate air quality1 - Rate of air pollutant removal
Food, Fiber, and Fuel Provisioning
Raw Materials - Copper reserves2 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Gold reserves2 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Lead reserves2 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Silver reserves2 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Zinc reserves2 - Same metric as original HWBI
Food & Fiber - Commercial fishery landings3 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Saw-timber tree volume on forest land4 - Forest area allocated for timber removal
- Agricultural productivity5 - Index of nitrogen fixation, carbon sequestration, soil water content
Energy - Recoverable coal reserves6 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Crude oil proved reserves6 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Natural gas proved reserves6 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Uranium reserves6 - Same metric as original HWBI
Greenspace
Recreation & Aesthetics -% of people who did non-consumptive activity within a mile of their home7 - Same metric as original HWBI
-% of people who took a wildlife observation trip within their state7 - Biodiversity
- Area of blue space per person7 - Modelled area of blue space per person
Natural Areas - National Parks acreage8 - Same metric as original HWBI
-% area designated rural park or wildlife area5 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Number of National Park visitors within a state8 - Same metric as original HWBI
- Unclassified land use acres (e.g., marsh, swamp, bare rock, tundra)5 - Modelled area of natural lands
Water Quality
Usable Water -% of water bodies assessed as ’Good’1 - Index of sediment load, nutrient load
-% days under a beach action (e.g., closure)1 - Fecal coliform load
Water Quantity
Available Water - Average monthly Palmer Hydrological Drought Index3 - Rainwater retention capacity by soil
- Water Sustainability Index9 - Same metric as original HWBI
Data Sources: 1. U.S. EPA Air Quality Index Report; 2. U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries; 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service; 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Inventory and Analysis Data Base; 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service; 6. U.S. Energy Information Administration; 7. U.S. Census Bureau; 8. National Park Service; 9. Natural Resources Defense Council.
either because no known EPF model with that specific metric as output reasonably assumed to be correlated, with metrics in the HWBI
was available, or because the necessary input data could not be con (Table 2), and ii) could be modelled with changing environmental
nected to the condition metrics described in future scenarios. When an conditions in the FORE-SCE scenarios (Table 3). To further ensure sur
EPF could not be identified, we replaced the original ecosystem services rogate estimates of services were on the same scale as the original ser
metrics with alternative surrogates that were i) comparable, or vices, we calibrated our modelled estimates of ecosystem services
Table 3
Input variables into ecological production function models (EPFs) to model ecosystem services metrics.
Ecosystem Service Input Environmental Condition Variables Output Ecosystem Service Metric
Air Quality
Canopy cover Rate of air pollutant removal
Food, Fiber, and Fuel Provisioning
None (decline at fixed rate over time) Raw material reserves
None (constant over time) Commercial fishery landings
Area of forest cover Forest area allocated for timber removal
Area of each land use/land cover class Nitrogen fixation
Area of each land use/land cover class Carbon sequestration
Precipitation, temperature, area of each land use/land cover class Soil water content
None (decline at fixed rate over time) Energy reserves
Greenspace
None (constant over time) % of people who did non-consumptive activity within a mile of their home
Area of each land use/land cover class Biodiversity
Area of water, population density Modelled area of blue space per person
None (constant over time) National Parks acreage
None (constant over time) % area designated rural park or wildlife area
None (constant over time) Number of National Park visitors within a state
Area of each barren, forest, grassland, wetland classes Modelled area of natural lands
Water Quality
Precipitation, temperature, area of each land use/land cover class Sediment load
Precipitation, temperature, area of each land use/land cover class Nutrient load
Precipitation, temperature, area of each land use/land cover class Fecal coliform load
Water Quantity
Area of each land use/land cover class Rainwater retention capacity by soil
None (constant over time) Water Sustainability Index
5
Table 4
Environmental variables explaining greatest variability in year to year changes in ecosystem service scores, determined by step-wise multiple linear regressions.
Variable Value T-value r2
NS
Δ Air quality Intercept 1.06E-05 0.12 0.12
Δ Developed − 1.60E-04 − 14.02***
Δ Agriculture − 1.53E-04 − 13.79***
Δ Pasture − 1.03E-05 − 7.20***
Δ Developed Open Space 4.83E-05 5.16***
Δ Food, Fiber, Fuel Intercept − 0.00212 − 12.07*** 0.07
Δ Pasture 0.00026 9.58***
Δ Developed Open Space − 0.00013 − 7.01***
Δ Deciduous Forest 0.00020 5.54***
Δ Greenspace Intercept − 2.61E-05 − 1.39NS 0.39
Δ Developed Open Space − 7.66E-05 − 32.02***
Δ Agriculture − 9.31E-05 − 33.10***
Δ Developed − 9.20E-05 − 31.70***
Δ Pasture − 7.77E-05 − 21.28***
Δ WaterQuality Intercept 0.00012 0.34NS 0.34
Δ Mean Daily Precipitation − 0.02123 − 57.57***
Δ Mean Daily Temperature − 0.00164 − 4.52***
Δ Water Quantity Intercept − 2.40E-05 − 5.52*** 0.28
Δ Agriculture − 1.94E-04 − 31.20***
Δ Herbaceous Wetland − 1.31E-04 − 18.33***
Δ Pasture − 1.22E-04 − 15.55***
Δ Evergreen Forest 3.65E-05 11.90***
relative to the known services score values in 2010 (Appendix Table A1; average canopy cover (NLCD 2011) across IDUs assigned to each land
Smith et al., 2014a; Ignatius et al., 2016; EPA 2018). As such, the use/land cover class in 2010 (Appendix Table A1).
relative changes in modelled ecosystem services should provide a
reasonable surrogate for assigning relative changes in ecosystem ser 2.4.2. Food, fiber, and fuel
vices scores as input into HWBI regression models. The HWBI indicator of food, fiber, and fuel comprises three in
Ecosystem services metrics were modelled for each IDU using EPFs dicators describing food production, raw material reserves, and energy
and then scaled between zero and one, using the minimum and reserves (Table 2). Raw material reserves and energy reserves were set
maximum IDU value across the entire watershed at the start of the to their average 2000–2010 values at the start of simulations and
simulation period to bound the range of outcomes and prevent extreme assumed to decline at a fixed rate over time. Referring to the FORE-SCE
outliers from skewing scaled scores in future years. An average scaled scenarios, material and energy reserves were assumed to decline at a
metric value was then calculated across all IDU within each county. slightly faster rate for the A2 scenario (1% per year) than the B1 scenario
Following the HWBI indicator calculation procedure (Smith et al., 2012, (0.5% per year), the latter of which was assumed to implement more
2014a,b), scaled metrics were averaged to calculate a yearly indicator renewable energy technologies. The commercial fishery landings
score for each county, with indicators then averaged to create an component of food production was set to the average 2000–2010 value
aggregated ecosystem service score for each county (Table 2). We fixed and assumed to be constant over time as projected vulnerability under
the start year 2010 to the known ecosystem service score values from both A2 and B1 scenarios has been estimated to be low and uncertain, as
2000 to 2010 for each county (Appendix Table A1; Smith et al., 2014a; projected impacts are highly species specific and could be both negative
EPA 2018), and adjusted yearly modelled ecosystem scores relative to and positive (Porter et al., 2014). Timber production was assumed to be
that start year based on year-to-year differences in scores. a constant percentage (2.15% per year) of available forest cover, based
on published rates of timber production for the area (USFS 2016), such
2.4.1. Air quality that FORE-SCE scenarios producing greater forest cover would also have
Air quality, originally measured in the HWBI as the fraction of days greater potential for timber production. Agricultural productivity was
each year with good to moderate air quality (Table 2), is assumed to be calculated as a composite index of indicators of soil quality, including
related to changes in pollution over time, as well as the ability of trees to carbon burial into soil, nitrogen fixation in soil, and soil water content.
buffer that pollution. Rates of air pollutant removal depend on the Rates of carbon burial and nitrogen fixation were calculated as the mean
downward flux of particles intercepted by the tree canopy (Lovett et al. for each land use/land cover type, derived from a scientific literature
1994; Nowak et al., 2008), which can be used to calculate the reduction review (Fulford et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017; Appendix Table A2).
in pollution concentration as: Depth of soil water content was modelled as percolation of moisture
through the soil, depending on changing weather patterns for precipi
% canopy cover
rate of air pollutant removal = × area tation and temperature, with the HBV hydrologic model (Bergström
100
1995; Abebe et al., 2010), depending on soil moisture storage capacity
× deposition velocity
and evapotranspiration coefficients (Allen et al., 1998;
× pollutant concentration (1) Appendix Tables A2, A3).
Because atmospheric pollutant concentration and types of pollutants
2.4.3. Greenspace
can vary widely across time and space, we standardized the rates of
Greenspace is comprised of two indicators: i) extent of natural areas
pollutant removal per unit of pollutant (i.e., per 1 g/m3 of pollutant
and ii) usage of nature through recreation and aesthetics (Table 2).
throughout the watershed). We focused on removal rates for particulate
Acreage and visitation rates to designated natural areas, such as Na
matter greater than 2 µm, and assumed a deposition velocity of 1.25 cm/
tional Parks or wildlife areas, and non-consumptive activity rates, were
s (range=0.5–2 cm/s; Lovett, 1994). Canopy cover per IDU was
fixed to their original 2000–2010 levels, under the assumption that they
modelled as a changing function of land use, based on calculating an
would not predictably differ between the A2 or B1 scenarios. Fraction of
6
unclassified land areas was modelled by assigning barren, forest, et al., 2006):
grassland, and wetlands as unclassified land and calculating coverage ( )
1000
relative to total land cover. Wildlife observation activity was assumed to Maximum retained volume = S + Ia = 1.05 × − 10 (5)
CN
be correlated with biodiversity (i.e., species richness) of amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals. Species richness data was obtained from Curve numbers (CN) were calculated based on the mean distribution
the Gap Analysis Project, which generates species distribution maps of hydrologic soil groups for each region in each land use/land cover
based on best available data (USGS 2011). Each land use/land cover class at a resolution of 30×30m2 (Appendix Table A2). Retention was
class was assigned an average species richness based on the average then converted from inches to mm3/mm2. The water sustainability index
richness across all IDUs assigned to that class. Blue space was calculated already incorporates 2050 projections of water demand under future
as the area designated as water per person in each IDU. scenarios, and was therefore set to the original calculated county values
(NRDC 2005).
2.4.4. Water quality
Water quality, measured in the national HWBI by the percent of 2.4.6. EPF model uncertainty
water bodies assessed as ‘good’ and percent days under beach action, is Parameterization of EPF models was derived from a combination of
assumed to be associated with the capacity of different land cover classes literature values or estimates of mean production per land use type from
to retain nutrients, sediment, and fecal coliforms (Table 2). Sediment available data. In total, the full suite of connected EPF models had over
loading, nutrient loading, and fecal coliform loading from each IDU was 35 model parameters, many of which had separate parameters for each
modelled by first using the HBV hydrological model (Bergström 1995; land use/land cover type. Because uncertainty in model parameters can
Abebe et al., 2010) to calculate daily surface water runoff volume. potentially influence outcomes, we investigated the degree to which
Surface water runoff depends on the capacities of different land cover uncertainty in ecosystem services estimates influence uncertainty in
classes for retaining water, depending on soil moisture storage capacity results. We ran 20 simulations for each of the two FORE-SCE scenarios,
and evapotranspiration coefficients (Appendix Table A2, A3). Each drawing all EPF model parameters from truncated normal distributions,
IDU’s contribution to nutrient runoff depends on the contribution of that based on the literature derived mean, standard deviation, minimum, and
IDU to surface runoff within an HRU (hydrologic sensitivity score, HSS), maximum (Appendix Tables A2, A3). We limited our uncertainty
the area weighted average nutrient export from each land use within an investigation to the EPF parameterization, such that only the EPF model
HRU (Enut), and the percent efficiency of land cover vegetation in an IDU parameters were allowed to vary between each simulation run. The
at removing nutrients (REnut), and was calculated as: yearly FORE-SCE raster maps and projected weather data coefficients
were consistent with each simulation. We note these both could be
nutrient loading = HSS × Enut × (1 − REnut / 100)/area (2)
additional sources of uncertainty, but because the primary focus of this
where HSS is the relative contribution of surface runoff from a given IDU article is leveraging EPFs to connect environmental condition to well-
relative to all IDU within an HRU (Tallis et al., 2013). Sediment loading being, we focused our uncertainty analysis on the EPFs. Twenty sto
from each IDU was estimated by applying the modified Universal Soil chastic simulations for each scenario was determined to be sufficient to
Loss Equation (USLE; Williams 1975) less the percent of sediment produce stable estimates of mean ecosystem services and confidence
retained by vegetation (Tallis et al., 2013): intervals, while balancing limitations in model run-time that made large
numbers of simulations prohibitive.
( )0.56
sediment loading = 11.8 × Q ∗ qp × Ksed × ls × Csed × Psed
× (1 − REsed / 100) (3)
2.5. Ecological benefits functions (EBFs)
Here, sediment loading is dependent on surface runoff volume (Q),
peak runoff rate (qp), cover and management factor (Csed), management Projected county-scale ecosystem services indicators (air quality,
practice factor (Psed), land slope factor (ls), soil erodibility factor (Ksed), food/fiber/fuel, greenspace, water quality, and water quantity) in each
and the percent efficiency of land cover vegetation in retaining sediment scenario simulation year were used as input into HWBI services to
(REsed). To approximate downslope movement of water within an IDU domain regression models (Table 1; Summers et al., 2016) in order to
polygon, retention efficiencies (REnut, REsed) were assumed to be 0% for estimate corresponding changes in eight domains of well-being. In
the portion of an IDU’s area within 50 m of a stream, and 90% for the addition to ecosystem services indicators, the HWBI services to domain
portion of area greater than 500 m distance from a stream (CRWQCB regression models (Summers et al., 2016) include the effects of eco
2013). Fecal coliform loading was modelled as the fraction of bacterial nomic services indicators and social services indicators on human
coliforms accumulating in each IDU that are susceptible to wash-off by well-being domain scores (Fig. 1; Appendix Table A4). Initial data for
surface runoff (SURO), and is calculated as: economic and social services indicators were obtained as the 2000–2010
( ( )) averages for each county (Appendix Table A1; Smith et al., 2014a;
SOQUAL = Naccum + N0 10− k × (1 − exp(
Ignatius et al., 2016; EPA 2018). Because our primary focus was on the
− 1 × SURO × 2.30 / WSQOP) (4) role of ecosystem services in projected land use development scenarios,
we did not directly model projected changes in economic or social ser
where Naccum is the daily accumulation rate of bacteria colonies, N0 is vices indicators. However, the potential covarying effects of economic or
the number of colonies the prior day, k is the rate of colony die-off, and social services indicators can still contribute to uncertainty in model
WSQOP is the rate of surface runoff needed in each land cover type to outcomes. Therefore, in addition to the 20 stochastic simulations
wash-off 90% of bacterial colonies (Moyer and Hyer 2003). capturing uncertainty in ecosystem services models (EPFs), we also
investigated uncertainty driven by covarying social and economic ser
2.4.5. Water quantity vices indicators.
In the national HWBI, water quantity comprises two indicators rep The HWBI services to domain regression models supply three ap
resenting water sustainability and drought potential (Table 2). Drought proaches for adjusting projected domain scores based on covariances
potential is assumed to be related to the capacity of the landscape to among services and domains (Summers et al., 2016). First, we assumed
store rainwater. The maximum rainwater storage capacity of the land social and economic services indicators were constant over the 40 year
scape during a precipitation event (in3/in2) depends on soil moisture simulation time period. Second, we adjusted economic and social ser
retention (S) and initial abstraction of water by vegetation (Ia), and can vices indicators yearly based on their covariances with ecosystem ser
be estimated by the curve number method (USDA and NRCS, 1986; Lim vices indicators in the US national data set (Appendix Table A4;
7
Fig. 3. Mean ecosystem service scores over the simulation period for scenarios A2 and B2 for the bay watershed (a, c, e, g, i), with the US national average score from
2000 to 2010 included as a reference point (gray horizontal line). Mean yearly rates of change for each county (b, d, f, h, j), with the no change zero line for reference
(horizontal line). Dark or light gray fill indicate 90th percentile range across 20 stochastic simulations.
8
Fig. 4. Mean well-being domain scores over the simulation period for scenarios A2 and B2 for the bay watershed (a, c, e, g, i, k, m), with the US national average
score 2000–2010 included as a reference point (gray horizontal line). Mean yearly rates of change for each county (b, d, f, h, j, l, n), with the no change zero line for
reference (horizontal line). Dark or light gray fill indicate 90th percentile range across 20 stochastic simulations.
9
Fig. 5. Change in land cover (a,b), population density (c,d), precipitation (e), and temperature (f) for the two modelled scenarios over the simulation period
2010–2050. Land cover types in order from bottom to top are Forest (For), Developed (Dev), Wetland (Wet), Grassland or Pasture (GrPa), Agriculture (Agr), Barren or
Developed Open Space (BaOs), and Water (Wat).
10
Summers et al., 2016). Third, after applying services covariances, we development or agricultural uses increased (Table 4). Increases in open
further adjusted domain scores based on covariances among domains in space were positively associated with higher air quality scores. Food/
the US national data set (Appendix Table A5; Summers et al., 2016). The fiber/fuel scores tended to decrease with corresponding declines in
three approaches provide three separate calculations of domain and pasture lands and forest cover, and greater availability of developed
HWBI scores, which, combined with the 20 simulations of EPF param open spaces (Table 4). Greenspace scores tended to decrease with
eters, we used to estimate the mean and 90% confidence interval of increasing coverages of agricultural or developed lands (Table 4). Water
projected outcomes. quantity scores tended to decrease with increasing coverages of agri
Modelled indicator scores for ecosystem services, economic services, cultural lands, but increased with forest cover. Unlike the other four
and social services for each county each year were input into HWBI ecosystem services, water quality scores were more strongly driven by
regression models (Table 1; Summers et al., 2016) to calculate scores year to year variability in precipitation and temperature, with declines
with or without covariance adjustments for each domain of human in water quality scores in years with higher mean daily precipitation or
well-being. We calibrated modeled HWBI domain scores to known higher mean temperature (Table 4).
county values by looking at the relative change in scores each year, Parameter uncertainty in EPF models led to the greatest uncertainty
setting the start year to the known 2010 scores (Appendix Table A1; in projections for food/fiber/fuel scores or water quality scores, with
Smith et al., 2014a; Ignatius et al., 2016; EPA 2018). Composite HWBI 90% of projected scores across simulations differing by as much as 0.1
was calculated as the geometric mean of domain scores (Smith et al., by the end of the simulation period (year 2050) on a standardized scale
2012). The HWBI framework allows the option to differentially weight from 0.0 to 1.0 for services scores (Fig. 3). Uncertainty was the lowest for
domain scores depending on their perceived importance to a community greenspace scores (90% differing by less than 0.02) and water quantity
through relative importance values (Smith et al., 2012; Fulford et al., scores (90% differing by less than 0.04). Air quality scores differed by as
2016). For simplification, however, we assumed the relative importance much as 0.07 by the end of the simulation period. However, with the
of domains were equally weighted. To calculate service, domain, and exception of food/fiber/fuel scores differences between stochastic sim
HWBI scores for the entire study area, county scores were averaged and ulations due to parameter uncertainty were still far less than known
weighted by the population density in each county. range of variability in services scores between counties (Appendix A5).
Similarly, uncertainty in projections of domain scores, which also
2.6. Sensitivity analysis and scenario comparisons incorporated uncertainty from contributions of social and economic
services, produced scores that differed by as little as 0.07 for health
Because indicator scores for both services and well-being domains domain scores and as much as 0.2 for connection to nature domain
are calculated on a relative scale between zero and one, it may not be scores and social cohesion domain scores by the end of the simulation
apparent what range of scores is considered to be good or poor. There period, on a standardized scale of 0.0 to 1.0 (Fig. 4). Differences, how
fore, we used the US national average scores 2000–2010 to set a baseline ever, were again within or below the known range of variability across
for comparison (Smith et al., 2014a; Ignatius et al., 2016; EPA 2018). county domain scores in 2010 (Appendix A5).
Scores below the US national average, either for a particular county or
over time, were generally considered “below average”, with scores 3.2. Scenario comparisons
above the US national values considered “above average”.
To determine which environmental conditions were primarily 3.2.1. Projected changes in environmental condition
driving changes in ecosystem services indicators, we calculated several Projected future land use and weather trends for the Pensacola Bay
environmental condition metrics for each scenario, including percent watershed were obtained from external sources (USGS 2016; Abatzo
area of different land use types, human population density, mean pre glou and Brown 2012) and are briefly summarized here. Under scenario
cipitation, and mean temperature. We conducted a multiple linear A2, the counties in Pensacola Bay watershed were projected to have
regression for each ecosystem service indicator, with stochastic runs as a increases in developed lands and agriculture, with declines in forest and
random effect, to determine the degree to which year-to-year change in wetland cover (Fig. 5a). Under the B1 FORE-SCE scenario, development
ecosystem services scores could be explained by year-to-year changes in increased only slightly, with fewer conversions of forest or wetland to
environmental condition. Years within a given stochastic simulation developed lands than the A2 scenario (Fig. 5b). The B1 scenario also
were treated as repeated measures. All statistical analyses were con projected declines in agriculture, pasture, barren lands, and open space,
ducted in R (www.r-project.org) using ‘lm’ for standard linear re as these lands are left to transition to forest. As a result, forest cover was
gressions or ‘lme’ for models with random effects. projected to increase in most counties. Yearly transitions to developed
Across the entire watershed, we used analysis of covariance space tended to be smoother in scenario A2, as development increased at
(ANCOVA), with stochastic runs as a random effect, to assess whether a fairly steady pace, whereas in B1 development was somewhat more
ecosystem service scores, domain scores, or HWBI scores changed over episodic to minimize impacts to protected natural areas. In scenario B1,
time for the A2 and B1 scenarios (year x scenario). To evaluate upward land cover changes tended to stabilize roughly half-way through simu
or downward temporal trends by county, we used linear regressions to lations as space to add more developed areas became increasing limited.
calculate the slopes of scores over time as a measure of the average Projected precipitation and temperature were variable day to day
yearly rate of change for the watershed study area or each county. We (Fig. 5e, f), with a slight increasing trend in mean annual temperature
then conducted two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess (0.015◦ C increase from 2010 to 2050) and decreasing trend in mean
whether calculated rates of change differed significantly between sce annual precipitation (0.002 mm decrease from 2010 to 2050) over the
nario A2 and B1, and whether there were differences between counties forty-year simulation time period.
(county x scenario). We modeled the estimated population density over time based on the
mean population density per land use/land cover class in 2010 and
3. Results projected it forward based on the FORE-SCE projected land use types.
Population density was projected to increase in both scenarios, but at
3.1. Sensitivity analysis and model uncertainty much faster rates in the A2 scenario (Fig. 5c, d). Our population esti
mates were consistent with the FORE-SCE descriptions of higher rates of
We examined the results of twenty simulations of two future land use population growth in the A2 scenario, represented by increased devel
scenarios to assess which environmental changes were primarily driving oped space in the FORE-SCE land use maps.
changes in ecosystem services indicator scores (Table 4). Year-to-year
changes in air quality scores decreased as land dedicated to either
11
Fig. 6. Mean composite human well-being index (HWBI) over the simulation period for scenarios A2 and B2 for the bay watershed (a), with the US national average
score 2000–2010 included as a reference point (gray horizontal line). Mean yearly rates of change for each county (b), with the no change zero line for reference
(horizontal line). Dark or light gray fill indicate 90th percentile range across 20 stochastic simulations.
3.2.2. Ecosystem services indicators decline in food/fiber/fuel scores were similar across counties, and were
The indicators for air quality, greenspace, and water quantity across consistently lower in scenario A2 than B1 across all counties (Fig. 3d;
the bay watershed were relatively stable under the B1 scenario, but ANOVA: Scenario, F = 78.5, p<0.001; County, F = 2.6, p = 0.05; Sce
declined significantly under the A2 scenario (Fig. 3, left column; nario x County, F = 0.36, p = 0.78). Projected declines in food/fiber/fuel
ANCOVA: Air quality, Scenario x Year, F = 1386.1, p<0.001; Green scores were primarily related to declines in pasture lands, declines in
space, Scenario x Year, F = 5020.3, p<0.001; Water quantity, Scenario x timber-providing forest cover, and increases in developed open spaces
Year, F = 1794.8, p<0.001). Rates at which the three changed over time (Table 4).
differed among the four counties, with the fastest projected declines for The water quality indicator was variable from year to year, but did
each in the most urbanized county under scenario A2 (Fig. 3, right not differ significantly between scenarios (Fig. 3g; ANCOVA: Scenario, F
column; ANOVA, Scenario x County, F = 5.89, p<0.001; Greenspace, = 0.087, p = 0.77; Year, F = 29.7, p<0.001; Scenario x Year, F = 1.99, p
Scenario x County, F = 8.32, p<0.001; Water quantity, Scenario x = 0.16). Water quality scores were projected to increase slightly for most
County, F = 16.5, p<0.001). Year-to-year changes in air quality, counties under both scenarios, but particularly with increasing urbani
greenspace, or water quantity indicators were primarily related to pro zation under the A2 scenario (Fig. 3h; ANOVA, Scenario x County, F =
jected changes in developed, agricultural, and pasture lands, which 3.37, p<0.001). For both scenarios, the water quality indicator remained
tended to replace forest and wetland canopy cover in the A2 scenario consistently above the US national average, with the exception of de
(Table 4). Under the B1 scenario, for counties where agricultural and clines in water quality scores in years with higher mean daily precipi
pasture lands transitioned to forest at rates faster than urban land tation or higher mean temperature (Table 4).
development, air quality scores, greenspace scores, and water quantity
scores were projected to have marginal increases over time (Fig. 3, right 3.2.3. Human well-being indicators
column). For most domains of well-being, scores across the Pensacola Bay
At the start of simulations, food/fiber/fuel scores across the bay watershed declined over time for both scenarios, but at faster rates for
watershed was relatively close to the US national average, but was scenario A2 (Fig. 4, left column). Education, leisure time, living stan
projected to decline substantially under both scenarios, particularly A2 dards, and social cohesion domain scores across the watershed were
(Fig. 3c; ANCOVA, Scenario x Year, F = 679.6, p<0.001). Rates of initially close to the US national average, but fell to levels below that
12
over time, particularly in scenario A2 (Fig. 4; ANCOVA: Education, across the watershed over the 40 year simulation period. Counties with
Scenario x Year, F = 58.1, p<0.001; Leisure time, Scenario x Year, F = the slowest rates of development and fastest transitions of barren,
178.5, p<0.001; Living standards, Scenario x Year, F = 185.8, p<0.001; pasture, or agricultural lands to forest were projected to have increases
Social cohesion, Scenario x Year, F = 128.9, p<0.001). Cultural fulfill in ecosystem services indicators. Only food/fiber/fuel scores were pro
ment and health domain scores remained at levels close to the US na jected to have consistent declines as raw material and energy resources
tional average, with slight declines over time for the A2 scenario (Fig. 4; were used, albeit at slower rates than the A2 scenario. Well-being
ANCOVA: Cultural fulfillment, Scenario x Year, F = 13.5, p = 0.002; domain scores were also fairly stable for most counties over the B1
Health, Scenario x Year, F = 6.6, p = 0.01). Safety and security domain simulation, although the most urbanized county was projected to have
scores started and remained below the US national average throughout slight declines over time. Leisure time was the only domain of well-being
the simulation period (Fig. 4m; ANCOVA: Cultural fulfillment, Scenario projected to have declining scores across all counties, largely due to its
x Year, F = 5.1, p = 0.03). strong correlations with declines in food/fiber/fuel scores.
Domain scores for cultural fulfillment, education, health, living This scenario analysis, though a demonstration, was motivated by a
standards, safety and security, and social cohesion declined at the fastest prior workshop with Escambia County residents to identify sustain
rates for the most urbanized county under the A2 scenario, with almost ability goals and strategies for achieving them (Fulford et al., 2016).
no change over time for the least urbanized county under the B1 sce Ecosystem services value (usable air, usable water, stable climate, and
nario (Fig 4, right column; ANOVA: Cultural fulfillment, F = 7.5, flood protection) was previously estimated to be lower for Escambia
p<0.001; Education, F = 6.5, p<0.001; Health, F = 10.8, p<0.001; County than nearby similar coastal counties (Fulford et al., 2016), and
Living standards, F = 2.2, p = 0.08; Safety, F = 14.4, p<0.001; Social our results broadly indicate that failing to implement land use devel
cohesion, F = 7.5, p<0.001). Leisure time scores declined over time for opment practices to account for maintaining and improving ecosystem
all counties, with A2 consistently lower than B1 (Fig. 4j; ANOVA: Sce services could lead to declines in community well-being. Moreover, in
nario, F = 70.3, p<0.001; County, F = 3.9, p = 0.01; Scenario x County, prior workshops, Pensacola community members identified goals
F = 0.66, p = 0.57). related to living standards and social cohesion as most important to
Connection to nature was the only domain of well-being projected to them, with connection to nature being among the least important goals
have increasing scores over time, with scenario A2 showing higher rates (Fulford et al., 2016). For simplification, we weighted domain scores
of increase than B1 (Fig. 4a; ANCOVA, F = 132.2, p<0.001). The most equally in our simulations, but note that weighting domain scores in
urbanized county was projected to have the highest rates of increase in alignment with community goals may have resulted in even greater
connection to nature scores, particularly under scenario A2, while the declines in overall aggregate measures of well-being.
least urbanized county was projected to be more stable over time,
particularly under scenario B1 (Fig. 4b; ANOVA, F = 8.3, p<0.001). 4.2. Impacts of land use and changing weather patterns on well-being
The composite well-being index score for the watershed, HWBI, was
below the US national average and was projected to decline over time Although our analysis focused on the Pensacola Bay watershed, the
for the A2 scenario, with slight declines for the B1 scenario (Fig. 6a; results serve to illustrate a number of points about how ecosystem ser
ANCOVA, F = 94.1, p<0.001). HWBI was projected to decline at the vices may impact well-being that are broadly transferable to other
fastest rates for the most urban county under scenario A2 (Fig. 6b; communities. First, increasing rates of developed lands were almost
ANOVA, F = 5.9, p<0.001). The least urbanized county had mean rates universally associated with declines in ecosystem services indicators and
of change closer to zero under the B1 scenario, with some stochastic domain scores of well-being, as natural ecosystems were replaced by
simulations projecting increases in well-being (Fig. 6b). impervious surfaces. Declines in forest cover, in particular, depleted the
ability of ecosystems to buffer air pollutants, provide habitat for biodi
4. Discussion versity, and retain rainwater. Second, increases in ecosystem services
indicators did not necessarily translate into increases in domain scores
4.1. Pensacola Bay watershed demonstration study for well-being. In our simulations, projected changes in domain scores
could remain generally flat over time, despite increases in ecosystem
This study developed a modeling approach to estimate the potential services indicators over the same time period. In the HWBI services to
impacts of long-term changes in environmental condition on compo domain regression models (Summers et al., 2016), some ecosystem
nents of human well-being through changes in ecosystem services. We services indicators were negatively correlated with domain scores for
demonstrated our approach for the Pensacola Bay, Florida watershed. well-being, or had effects that were small relative to other social or
Under the A2 scenario of increasing population growth, slow techno economic services indicators.
logical change, increasing reliance on fossil fuels, and low resource Greenspace has been shown to have positive benefits on education,
protection (Cubasch et al., 2001), projected declines were observed for including test scores, problem solving skills, and interpersonal skills
our indicators of air quality, food/fiber/fuel, greenspace, and water (Lieberman and Hoody 1998; Louv 2005; Guhn et al., 2010). Similarly,
quantity over the 40 year simulation period. The declines in ecosystem our study found declines in our indicator of greenspace, particularly in
services indicators were primarily related to replacement of forest and scenarios and counties with higher development, to be associated with
wetland by development and agriculture, particularly in the most ur declines in our composite education component of well-being. In
banized counties, as well as high rates of depletion of raw materials and contrast, in our simulations, declines in our indicator of greenspace were
energy resources. In contrast, our water quality indicator, defined by associated with increases in connection to nature domain scores, driven
sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform loading, tended to increase in the by a significant negative correlation between the two in the HWBI
most urbanized county as development outpaced greater contributors of regression models (Summers et al., 2016). This seems counterintuitive,
non-point source runoff under model assumptions, such as agriculture. as the ability to interact with nature has been shown to strengthen one’s
Projected declines in ecosystem services indicators translated to declines appreciation for it (Nisbet et al., 2009). However, in developed areas in
in most human well-being domain scores for the A2 scenario, particu particular, greenspace may be associated with fear of crime (Schroeder
larly in counties with the highest rates of urbanization. Only connection & Anderson 1984). Alternatively, increasing scarcity of indicators
to nature domain scores were projected to increase under the A2 describing greenspace and biodiversity may increase appreciation for it
scenario. (Smith et al., 2014b). The HWBI regression models are built on data for
The B1 scenario, which has a greater emphasis on environmental the whole United States at a county-scale, and whether these relation
protection and resource efficiency (Cubasch et al., 2001), was projected ships hold regionally, or at finer spatial scales (e.g., census tracts) is
to produce fairly stable levels for our ecosystem services indicators worth further exploration (Summers et al., 2016).
13
Changing land use/land cover and changing climate are anticipated models that are broadly available and highly transferable. For purposes
to have impacts on human health through disruptions to pollen seasons of demonstration, we used the broadly available FORE-SCE future land
(Ziska et al., 2011), urban heat islands (Wilby 2008), and weather use scenarios and MACA future weather projections. A more detailed
hazard related illnesses (Curriero et al., 2001; Ahern et al., 2005). analysis could substitute locally derived land use scenarios for the
However, our results found a fairly small impact of future land use or watershed of interest. The key is that environmental condition data must
weather patterns under the IPCC scenarios on human health domain match, or be convertible to, the input data needed for EPFs.
scores as a component of well-being. In the HWBI services to domain Our approach leverages existing EPF models for quantifying
models, the water quantity indicator explained a small portion (15%; ecosystem services production, identified based on their ability to bridge
Summers et al., 2016) of variability in health outcomes, and in our both environmental condition scenario data needed as input, and to
models water quantity scores were largely driven by the ability of generate output compatible as input into HWBI services to domains
changing land cover classes to retain rainwater (e.g., drought and flood regression models. Good EPFs rely on data that is broadly available and
mitigation). Heat islands and allergens related to pollen were not met can be modified and parameterized according to user needs (Bruins
rics explicitly modelled within the HWBI framework (Smith et al., et al., 2017). The approaches we used to parameterize models for Pen
2014a). sacola Bay watershed are easily transferable to other locations. Our
Shifts in precipitation, temperature, and extreme weather events are analysis was fairly coarse, in that our estimates of ecosystem services
projected to impact agricultural productivity, including crop and live provisioning were primarily based on changing coverages of land
stock production (Luber et al., 2014), resulting in greater efforts needed use/land cover. At the scale of our study, a census-tract was essentially
to maintain food production and security. Our analysis found leisure treated as a uniformly developed surface. Smaller-scale decisions, such
time domain scores to decrease over time, particularly in scenarios and as development of rain gardens, riparian buffers, or parks may help to
counties with greater development. Leisure time scores were positively mitigate some of the negative impacts of development on ecosystem
correlated with indicators of food/fiber/fuel production (Summers services in ways that are not captured in our coarser analysis. Addi
et al., 2016), which in our models was explained primarily by agricul tionally, we restricted our analysis to ecosystem services metrics that
tural productivity. aligned closely with the HWBI services to domain regression models and
Weather hazards and loss of natural resources are expected to have could be linked to changing land use/land cover, which limited our
impacts on job security and the ability to obtain basic necessities, as well interpretation of results.
as cultural opportunities (Cutter et al., 2014; Groffman et al., 2014). In We leveraged the HWBI framework as an EBF to link changes in
our study, the indicators for water quantity and food/fiber/fuel provi ecosystem services to domains of well-being because it is a compre
sioning were positively correlated with living standards scores, and we hensive and flexible approach (Smith et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2014a)
found counties and scenarios with greater development to have small that resonates with the goals of communities (Fulford et al., 2016). Our
corresponding declines in living standards domain scores, and to a lesser approach provides an alternative to more common approaches to link
extent for cultural fulfillment scores. However, in the HWBI regression ecosystem services to health outcomes (e.g., Jackson et al., 2013; Oos
models (Summers et al., 2016), the biggest driver of living standards was terbroek et al., 2016) or to monetary measures of well-being (e.g., Birol
employment, explaining roughly 48% of variability in scores, and et al., 2006; Johnston and Wainger 2015; Yoskowitz et al., 2016), which
something not explicitly modeled in our scenarios. Variability in cultural tend to be biased toward market-based goods and services that are more
fulfillment scores were primarily driven by community and faith-based straightforward to quantify (Tuya et al., 2014). Although we weighted
social initiatives (49%; Summers et al., 2016). domains to have equal importance, the HWBI framework included the
Natural hazards, impacts on food supply, and susceptibility to ability to assign relative importance values to differentially weight
pathogens or contaminants are anticipated to have impacts on human domain scores in line with how stakeholders perceive their importance,
safety and security (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In our which can be highly variable among communities (Smith et al., 2012;
analysis, indicators of food/fiber/fuel and water quantity were also Fulford et al., 2016). The HWBI services to domain regression models
projected to have small positive effects on safety (Summers et al., 2016). are built off nationally available data, to identify broad characteriza
However, overall our study found only small decreases on safety and tions most likely outcomes (Summers et al., 2016). We restricted our
security domain scores, particularly in the scenarios and counties with demonstration to county-scale interpretations, to match county-scale
high development and higher water quality, driven primarily by nega data used to develop the original HWBI regression models. If alterna
tive correlations between water quality and safety in the HWBI regres tive local community data or finer-scale interpretation is desired or
sion models. In our models, water quality is primarily related to available, the regression models could be re-parameterized using
nutrient, sediment, and pathogen runoff (e.g., from agricultural areas), local-scale data to better reflect specific local conditions. Additionally,
such that developed areas, which may be prone to higher crime, tended because HWBI models are based off composite indicators representing
to have higher relative water quality. domains of well-being and services, interpretations are limited to a
Community cohesion and sense of identity, particularly for rural broad interpretation of relationships, and may not be appropriate when
communities, is tightly linked to local natural systems and may be specific metrics (e.g., educational test scores, employment) need to be
vulnerable to loss of natural resources (Hales et al., 2014). Weather considered.
hazards or inequities in natural resource availability can also exacerbate A key challenge with applying production functions and benefits
tensions in a community (Corell et al., 2014). In our analysis, the functions is dealing with uncertainties associated with our choice of
strongest impacts of land use change, in particular scenarios with high EPFs and model parameterization. We allowed model parameters to
development, were on social cohesion domain scores. Our indicators of vary within ranges we obtained from a literature review and ran sto
air quality and greenspace were positively correlated with social cohe chastic simulations to quantify the uncertainty in projections. The in
sion (Summers et al., 2016), and loss of these ecosystem services in dicator food/fiber/fuel had the greatest variability in projected
dicators with increasing development was projected to have negative outcomes, but produced consistent downward trends across multiple
impacts on social cohesion domain scores. stochastic simulations, driven in large part by the assumed constant rate
of decline in raw material and energy reserves. In contrast, air quality
4.3. Modeling approach and limitations and water quality indicators also had high variability in projected out
comes but led to greater uncertainty as some simulations indicated
This study demonstrates a modeling approach to project the impacts positive change while others indicated negative. Despite the variability
of changing ecosystem condition on ecosystem services and benefits to in ecosystem services scores, however, projected upward or downward
human well-being. In developing the approach, we leveraged data and trends in human well-being domain scores and composite HWBI scores
14
were consistent when comparing scenarios, and within or below the Declaration of Competing Interest
range of known variability. To some degree, the use of aggregated
indices to measure ecosystem services provisioning may help dampen Ms. No. ECOMOD-19–269
out uncertainty in modelled estimates of individual metrics. “Forecasting effects of land-use change on human well-being
Although several efforts have been undertaken to connect the pro through changes in ecosystem services”
visioning of ecosystem services to measures of human well-being (Gor The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
don and Folke 2000; Pereira et al., 2005; Pinto et al., 2014), the relative interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
importance of ecosystem services compared to economic or social ser the work reported in this paper.
vices is largely unknown. Land use changes over time that may produce The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re
greater ecosystem services occur in concert with changes in other social lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
or economic services, in ways that are often hard to disentangle. For
example, land that is allowed to transition to forest may provide positive Acknowledgments
effects through air quality or greenspace, but is countered by tradeoffs in
that the land may no longer be for economic or social services, e.g. such We thank J. Orlando for assistance processing spatial data layers, A.
as building a school or roads to improve emergency access. The HWBI Ignatius for assistance downloading HWBI indicator data, and support
framework assumes changes in well-being are driven by environmental, from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental
economic, and social factors, and presents an approach that explicitly Modeling and Visualization Lab for assistance with development of
considers ecosystem services within the context of economic and social model plug-ins for Envision. The views expressed in this paper are those
services (Summers et al., 2016). of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
The projections from the HWBI regression models are not intended to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names,
provide precise predictions of future well-being. Instead, scenario products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Gov
analysis should be interpreted as a potential direction and magnitude for ernment or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA
highlighting potential trade-offs, and provides a starting point for does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.
further discussion (Summers et al., 2016). The use of a comprehensive
well-being framework, such as the HWBI, helps ensure commonly Appendix
overlooked services and elements of well-being are considered as part of
that discussion. The scenarios examined here serve to demonstrate how Appendix Table A1, Appendix Table A2, Appendix Table A3,
differences in population growth, land development, and resource pro Appendix Table A4 and Appendix Table A5
tection may impact ecosystem services and well-being. Such an analysis
can raise awareness of potential unforeseen consequences, so that
communities and decision-makers can be pro-active in enacting de
cisions that improve well-being goals and consider the role of natural
Appendix Table A1
resources in achieving those goals.
Data-based 2000–2010 indicator values for ecosystem services, human well-
being domains, and composite HWBI for the four counties in the study area
(Smith et al. 2014; EPA 2018).
4.4. Conclusions
Escambia Okaloosa Santa Rosa Walton
Well-being is a concept that broadly resonates with community goals Ecosystem Services
for health, education, or social cohesion (Fulford et al., 2016), yet land Air Quality 0.31 0.72 0.29 0.90
Food, Fiber, Fuel 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.44
use planning efforts often largely focus on social or economic decision Greenspace 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.55
levers, and less often consider the potential benefits of managing natural Water Quality 0.41 0.39 0.73 0.67
resources. In addition to the HWBI framework, other efforts have been Water Quantity 0.40 0.48 0.41 0.38
undertaken to connect the provisioning of ecosystem services to mea Economic Services
Capital investment 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58
sures of well-being, paving the way for well-being assessments (Gordon
Consumption 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.52
and Folke 2000; Pereira et al., 2005; Pinto et al., 2014). Although the Employment 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.62
analysis presented here is highly quantitative, the goal of a tradeoff Finance 0.49 0.48 0.44 0.51
analysis should not be to obtain a mathematically optimal solution Innovation 0.39 0.40 0.58 0.60
(Failing et al., 2007; Gregory et al., 2012). Instead, ecosystem services Production 0.51 0.47 0.48 0.50
Re-distribution 0.40 0.42 0.35 0.49
and well-being assessments serve to complement more traditional Social Services
planning efforts by facilitating discussion, helping identify potential Activism 0.59 0.55 0.49 0.59
unintended consequences, helping identify common goals, and identi Communication 0.49 0.56 0.48 0.48
fying areas of uncertainty where more information is needed (Yee et al., Community Initiatives 0.19 0.18 0.31 0.34
Education 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.46
2017). An examination of the direct links from environmental condi
Emergency Preparedness 0.31 0.59 0.61 0.54
tions to social and economic benefits, can help ensure that key Family Services 0.48 0.54 0.53 0.57
well-being objectives and creative alternatives to achieve them are not Healthcare 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.44
overlooked. Justice 0.48 0.4 0.42 0.55
Labor 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.47
Public works 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.56
CRediT authorship contribution statement Human Well-Being
Connection to Nature 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.85
Susan H. Yee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Cultural Fulfillment 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.36
Education 0.46 0.52 0.51 0.31
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. E.
Health 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.53
Paulukonis: Data curation, Formal analysis. C. Simmons: Software. M. Leisure Time 0.60 0.57 0.59 0.56
Russell: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft. R. Fulford: Living Standards 0.50 0.55 0.54 0.50
Conceptualization, Writing - original draft. L. Harwell: Conceptualiza Safety and Security 0.50 0.59 0.65 0.57
tion, Writing - original draft. L.M. Smith: Conceptualization, Writing - Social Cohesion 0.43 0.49 0.51 0.38
Composite HWBI 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.48
original draft.
15
S.H. Yee et al.
Appendix Table A2
Mean and standard deviation of parameters for each land cover type used to calculate ecosystem services metrics. Canopy cover, impervious surface, species richness, and population density were calculated as the average
among IDU polygons where a given land cover type was the majority land cover.
Parameter Water Developed Open Developed Barren Deciduous Evergreen Mixed Grassland Hay and Agriculture Woody Herbaceous
Space Forest Forest Forest Pasture Wetlands Wetlands
Air Quality
Canopy Cover1 (%) 43.92 44.98 33.11 12.86 43.06 59 51.08 18.04 40.7 38.82 32.62 68.6
Std Dev 22.41 21.09 19.33 18.04 20.7 21.58 20.81 18.76 23.31 23.92 25.17 18.02
Food, Fuel, Fiber
Nitrogen Fixation11 (g N/m2/yr) 3.86 0.98 0.98† 0 6.06 0.54 2.91 1.83 17.92 11.86 0.85 8.73
StdDev 3 0.51 0.51† 0 3.57 0.35 3.6 3 5.87 7.56 0.46 5.53
Carbon Burial10 (g C/m2/yr) 103.3 91.75 98.5† 0 7.97 47.14 27.56 30.11 48.65 43.48 171.53 187.14
StdDev 61.63 29.9 29.9† 0 2.8 40.7 36.9 38.6 10.1 46.1 84.7 97.5
Impervious Surface1 (%) 4.74 12.38 30.87 23.82 8.09 7.1 7.65 26.46 8.45 9.19 5.79 5.36
StdDev 9.99 14.65 19.38 24.07 10.4 10.12 10.17 17.26 10.2 11.34 11.13 9.29
Evapotranspiration2 0.9 0.5 0.25 0.5 1 1 1 0.79 0.82 0.92 1.02 1.02
StdDev 0.21 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.21 0.19 0.19
Greenspace
Species Richness12 113.8 113.2 100.5 104.1 115.8 115.8 116.3 101.5 117.9 118.0 108.7 113.3
StdDev 22.4 23.4 25.6 29.2 20.6 21.5 20.4 31.4 20.8 20.8 22.5 23.3
Population Density13 (number/ 3 623 1658 1180 285 549 579 102 399 306 58 144
km2)
StdDev 39 1909 51,068 290 1908 29,390 23,775 211 9200 4480 197 1677
Water Quality
Nutrient Export3 (kg/km2/yr) 0 325 1141 100 317 317 317 854 854 43,300 435 435
StdDev 0 15 46 7 7 7 7 161 161 41,500 135 135
Nutrient Retention4 (%) 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 50 90 90
16
StdDev 0 0 0 0 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48

Soil Erodibility5 (tons/km2) 0 99 99 22 160 160 160 240 10 160 180 180
StdDev 0 11 11 2 18 18 18 26 1 18 20 20
Management Factor6 0 0 0 0 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.050 0.050 0.186 0.067 0.067
StdDev 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.020 0.007 0.007
Practice Factor7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0
StdDev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0 0
Sediment Retention4 (%) 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 50 90 90
StdDev 0 0 0 0 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48
Wash-off rate8 (mm/hr) 0 49.02 36.58 49.02 44.96 44.96 44.96 47.5 47.5 47.5 44.96 44.96
StdDev 0 30.99 43.94 30.99 20.57 20.57 20.57 26.67 26.67 26.67 20.57 20.57
Daily accumulation8 (billions/ 0 7.90 0.01 7.90 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.88 7.88
km2/day)
StdDev 0 11.12 0.01 11.12 11.14 11.14 11.14 11.07 11.07 11.07 11.14 11.14
Surface decay rate8 (per day) 0 0.295 0.41 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295
StdDev 0 0.261 0.22 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261
Water Quantity
Curve Number10
Ecological Modelling 440 (2021) 109358

100† 35.95 58.35 94.99 25.42 26.59 23.69 37.75 41.73 59.07 100†† 100††
StdDev 1.53 4.98 6.72 1.53 18.39 10.5 15.59 5.62 1.53 3.42 1.53 1.53
1. NLCD 2011; 2. Allen et al. 1998; 3. Reckhow et al. 1980; 4. Tallis et al. 2013; 5. USDA & NRCS 2004; Stone and Hilborn 2012; 6. Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; 7. Stone and Hilborn 2012; 8. Gregory & Frick 2000,
Yagow et al. 2001, Paul et al. 2002, Moyer & Hyer 2003, Im et al. 2012; 9. USDA and NRCS, 1986; USDA & NRCS 2004; 10. Fulford et al. 2016; 11. Augusto et al. 2005, Barber et al. 1976, Bell and Wright 1994, Boring et al.
1988, Bormann and Gordon 1984, Burns and Hardy 2012, Buresh et al. 1980, Busse 1999, Capone and Carpenter 1982, Casselman et al. 1981, Cleveland et al. 1999, Danso et al. 1992, DeLaune et al. 1986, Dierberg and
Brezonik 1981, Dierberg and Scheinkman 1987, Galal et al. 2000, Giddens 1982, Grant and Binkley 1987, Gu et al. 2009, Hungate et al. 1999, Jensen 1986, Jorgensen 1975, Khanna 1998, Ley and D’Antonio 1998, Peoples
and Baldock 2001, Permar and Fisher 1983, Rochester et al. 2001, Zahran 1999, Zuberer and Silver 1978; 12. USGS Gap Analysis Program 2011; 13. US Census 2010.
†
Value is lawn rate, which was multiplied by (1-impervious surface).
††
Open water and wetland soils are assumed to be 100% saturated.
Appendix A3 Appendix References

Range of parameters for HBV hydrology and evapotranspiration (ET) models
(Abebe et al., 2010; Huntington and Allen 2010). Abebe, NA, FL Ogden, N.R. Pradhan. 2010. Sensitivity and uncer
Variable Description Minimum Maximum units tainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: Implica
TT Threshold temperature − 1 1 ◦
C
tions for parameter estimation. Journal of Hydrology 389:301–310.
CFMAX Degree day factor for 1 10 mm/ Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S, Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapo
snowmelt ◦
C day transpiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements – FAO
SFCF Snowfall correction factor 0 2 irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organi
CFR Refreezing coefficient 0 0.1
zation of the United Nations, Rome.
CWH Snowpack water retention 0 0.2
fraction Augusto, L., Crampon, N., Saur, E., Bakker, M. R., Pellerin, S., Lav
FC Field capacity 100 300 mm aissiere, C. D., & Trichet, P. (2005). High rates of nitrogen fixation of
LP Soil moisture value above 20 100 mm Ulex species in the understory of maritime pine stands and the potential
which actual ET reaches effect of phosphorus fertilization. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35
potential ET
BETA Shape coefficient 1 6
(5), 1183–1192.
PERC Percolation to groundwater 0 2 mm Barber, L. E., Tjepkema, J. D., Russell, S. A., & Evans, H. J. (1976).
UZL Reservoir threshold 0 100 mm Acetylene reduction (nitrogen fixation) associated with corn inoculated
K0 Recession coefficient 0.05 0.5 1/day with Spirillum. Applied and environmental microbiology, 32(1), 108–113.
K1 Recession coefficient 0.01 0.3 1/day
Bell, M. J., & Wright, G. C. (1994). The N2-fixing capacity of peanut
K2 Recession coefficient 0.001 0.1 1/day
WP Permanent wilting point 0 20 mm cultivars with differing assimilate partitioning characteristics. Australian
Planting Temperature at which crops 5 12 ◦
C journal of agricultural research, 45(7), 1455–1468.
Threshold are planted Boring, L. R., Swank, W. T., Waide, J. B., & Henderson, G. S. (1988).
T30 Sources, fates, and impacts of nitrogen inputs to terrestrial ecosystems:
Killing Frost Temperature at which frost − 12 − 2 ◦
C
review and synthesis. Biogeochemistry, 6(2), 119–159.
Temp kills vegetation
Min Growing Minimum crop growing 100 220 Days Bormann, B. T., & Gordon, J. C. (1984). Stand density effects in
Season season young red alder plantations: productivity, photosynthate partitioning,
CGDD P to T Cumulative growing degree 740 3600 ◦
C and nitrogen fixation. Ecology, 65(2), 394–402.
days days
Buresh, R. J., Casselman, M. E., & Patrick Jr, W. H. (1980). Nitrogen
fixation in flooded soil systems, a review. Advances in Agronomy, 33
(19,801), 149–192.
Table A4 Burity, H. A., Ta, T. C., Faris, M. A., & Coulman, B. E. (1989). Esti
Directionality of covariances between ecosystem services indicators and social mation of nitrogen fixation and transfer from alfalfa to associated
or economic services calculated from national indicator data (from Summers grasses in mixed swards under field conditions. Plant and Soil, 114(2),
et al., 2016), used to adjust yearly values of economic and social services based 249–255.
on modelled changes in ecosystem services. Burns, R. C., & Hardy, R. W. (2012). Nitrogen fixation in bacteria and
Air Food/ Greenspace Water Water higher plants (Vol. 21). Springer Science & Business Media.
Quality Fiber Quality Quantity Busse, M. D. (1999). Out of Sight, but Not Out of Mind: Soil Micro
Economic Services organisms in Moisture-limited Forests. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
Capital + + + OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT
investment PNW, 146–155.
Consumption + + +
Employment + +
Capone, D. G., & Carpenter, E. J. (1982). Nitrogen fixation in the
Finance – – – marine environment. Science, 217(4565), 1140–1142.
Innovation Casselman, M. E., Patrick, W. H., & DeLaune, R. D. (1981). Nitrogen
Production – Fixation in a Gulf Coast Salt Marsh 1. Soil Science Society of America
Re-distribution +
Journal, 45(1), 51–56.
Social Services
Activism + + + Cleveland, C. C., Townsend, A. R., Schimel, D. S., Fisher, H.,
Communication Howarth, R. W., Hedin, L. O., … & Wasson, M. F. (1999). Global patterns
Community + of terrestrial biological nitrogen (N2) fixation in natural ecosystems.
Initiatives Global biogeochemical cycles, 13(2), 623–645.
Education – – –
Danso, S. K. A., Bowen, G. D., & Sanginga, N. (1992). Biological ni
+
Emergency – – –
Preparedness trogen fixation in trees in agro-ecosystems. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Family Services – – – for Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 177–196). Springer, Dordrecht.
Healthcare + – DeLaune, R. D., Smith, C. J., & Sarafyan, M. N. (1986). Nitrogen
Justice + +
cycling in a freshwater marsh of Panicum hemitomon on the deltaic
Labor –
Public works plain of the Mississippi River. The Journal of Ecology, 249–256
Dierberg, F. E., & Brezonik, P. L. (1981). Nitrogen fixation (acetylene
Table A5
Directionality of covariances between domains calculated from national indicator data (from Summers et al., 2016), used to adjust yearly domain scores.
Cultural Fulfillment Education Health Leisure Time Living Standards Safety and Security Social Cohesion
Connection to Nature – – – + – – –
Cultural Fulfillment + + – + + +
Education + + + + +
Health + + + +
Leisure Time – 0 0
Living Standards + +
Safety and Security +
17
reduction) associated with decaying leaves of pond cypress (Taxodium fertility, and the contributions of fixed nitrogen to Australian farming
distichum var. nutans) in a natural and a sewage-enriched cypress dome. systems. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 41(3), 327–346.
Applied and environmental microbiology, 41(6), 1413–1418. Permar, T. A., & Fisher, R. F. (1983). Nitrogen fixation and accretion
Dierberg, F. E., & Scheinkman, M. M. (1987). Contribution from by wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in slash pine (Pinus elliottii) planta
nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) to the nitrogen budget of Lake tions. Forest Ecology and Management, 5(1), 39–46.
Tohopekaliga (Florida). Hydrobiologia, 154(1), 61–73. Reckhow, K. H., Beaulac, M.N., Simpson, J.T., 1980. Modeling
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2018. Human Well-Being phosphorus loading and lake response under uncertainty: a manual and
Index Map Server. https://gispub.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/ORD/H compilation of export coefficients. EPA/440/5/80/011, U. S. Environ
umanWellBeingIndex/MapServer/ mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, J. Harvey, and M.C. Harwell. 2016. Sus Rochester, I. J., Peoples, M. B., Hulugalle, N. R., Gault, R., &
tainability at the Community Level: Searching for Common Ground as a Constable, G. A. 2001. Using legumes to enhance nitrogen fertility and
Part of a National Strategy for Decision Support. U.S. Environmental improve soil condition in cotton cropping systems. Field crops research,
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/178. 70(1), 27–41.
Galal, Y. G. M., El-Ghandour, I. A., Aly, S. S., Soliman, S., & Gadalla, Schroeder, H.W., L.M. Anderson. 1984. Perception of personal safety
A. (2000). Non-isotopic method for the quantification of biological ni in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research 16:178–194.
trogen fixation and wheat production under field conditions. Biology and Smith, L.M., L. Harwell, J.K. Summers, H.M. Smith, C.M. Wade, K.R.
Fertility of Soils, 32(1), 47–51. Straub, and J.L. Case 2014. A U.S. Human Well-being Index (HWBI) for
Giddens, J. E. (1982). Nitrogen fixation in soil crusts of tall fescue multiple scales: linking service provisioning to human well-being end
sods. Soil Science, 133(5), 295–297. points (2000–2010). EPA/600/R-14/223.
Grant, D., & Binkley, D. (1987). Rates of free-living nitrogen fixation Stone, R.P., Hilborn, D., 2012. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
in some piedmont forest types. Forest Science, 33(2), 548–551. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Factsheet, Order
Gregory, M.B. and E.A. Frick. 2000. Fecal-coliform bacteria con No. 12–051.
centrations in streams of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Sohl, T. and K. Sayler. 2008. Using the FORE-SCE model to project
Area, Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, May–October 1994 and 1995. U.S. land-cover change in the southeastern United States. Ecological
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4139, Modelling 219:49–65.
Atlanta, Georgia. Summers, J.K., L.C. Harwell, L.M. Smith. 2016. A model for change:
Gu, B., Chang, J., Ge, Y., Ge, H., Yuan, C., Peng, C., & Jiang, H. An approach for forecasting well-being from service-based decisions.
(2009). Anthropogenic modification of the nitrogen cycling within the Ecological Indicators 69:295–309.
Greater Hangzhou Area system, China. Ecological Applications, 19(4), Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson,
974–988. E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D.,
Hungate, B. A., Dijkstra, P., Johnson, D. W., Hinkle, C. R., & Drake, B. Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema,
G. (1999). Elevated CO2 increases nitrogen fixation and decreases soil K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G.,
nitrogen mineralization in Florida scrub oak. Global Change Biology, 5 Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., and Griffin, R., Glo
(7), 781–789. winski, K., Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M. Mandle, L., Griffin,
Huntington J.L. and R.G. Allen. 2010. Evapotranspiration and net R., Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., 2013. InVEST 3.0.0 User’s Guide. The
irrigation water requirements for Nevada. State of Nevada, Department Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, US Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder. http://factfinder.
Carson City, NV. census.gov
Im, S., K.M. Brannan, S. Mostaghimi, and J. Cho. 2012. Simulating USDA & NRCS, 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. United
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Loading from an Urbanizing Watershed. Journal States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Ser
of Environmental Science and Health Part A 39:663–679 vice, and Conservation Engineering Division, Technical Release 55.
Jensen, E. S. (1986). The influence of rate and time of nitrate supply USDA & NRCS, 2004. Soil Survey of Escambia County, Florida.
on nitrogen fixation and yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Fertilizer United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conserva
Research, 10(3), 193–202. tion Service Technical Report.
Jorgensen, J. R. (1975). Nitrogen fixation in forested coastal plain USGS (US Geological Survey) Gap Analysis Program. 2011. National
soils. FAO Report. GAP vertebrate species distribution model. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/
Khanna P.K. (1998) Nutrient cycling under mixed-species tree sys species
tems in Southeast Asia Agrof. Syst., 38, pp. 99–120 Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion
Ley, R. E., D’Antonio, C.M., 1998. Exotic grass invasion laters po losses – a guide to conservation planning. U. S. Department of Agricul
tential rates of N fixation in Hawaiian woodlands. Oecologia 113, ture, Agriculture Handbook No. 537.
179–187. Yagow, G., T. Dillaha, S. Mostaghimi, K. Brannan, C. Heatwole, M.L.
Moyer, D.L. and K.E. Hyer. 2003. Use of the Hydrological Simulation Wolfe. 2001. TMDL Modeling of fecal coliform bacteria with HSPF.
Program – FORTRAN and Bacterial Source Tracking for Development of American Society of Agricultural Engineering Paper 01:2066, Sacra
the Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Christians mento, CA.
Creek, Augusta County, Virginia. Water Resources Investigations Report Zahran, H. H. (1999). Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen
03–4162. US Geological Survey, Richmond, Virginia. fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate. Microbiology and
NLCD (National Land Cover Database), 2011. NLCD 2001 Land cover molecular biology reviews, 63(4), 968–989.
(2011 Edition). Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium Zuberer, D., & Silver, W. S. (1978). Biological dinitrogen fixation
(MRLC). www.mrlc.gov. (acetylene reduction) associated with Florida mangroves. Applied and
Paul, S., M. Matlock, P. Haan, S. Mukhtar, and S. Pillai. 2002. Un environmental Microbiology, 35(3), 567–575.
certainty analysis as a first step of developing a risk-based approach to
nonpoint source modeling of fecal coliform pollution for total maximum References
daily load estimates. Texas Water Resources Institute SR-2002–014,
College Station, TX Abatzoglou, J.T., Brown, T.J., 2012. A comparison of statistical downscaling methods
suited for wildfire applications. Int J Climatol 32, 772–780.
Peoples, M. B., & Baldock, J. A. (2001). Nitrogen dynamics of pas
tures: nitrogen fixation inputs, the impact of legumes on soil nitrogen
18
Abebe, N.A., Ogden, F.L., Pradhan, N.R., 2010. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the Ignatius, A., Wolfe, K., Parmar, R., Flaishans, J., Harwell, L., Yee, S., Purucker, Tom,
conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: implications for parameter estimation. Galvin, M., 2016. Design and Implementation of a REST API for the Human Well
J Hydrol (Amst) 389, 301–310. Being Index (HWBI). In: Proceedings, 8th International Congress on Environmental
Ahern, M., Kovats, R.S., Wilkinson, P., Few, R., Matthies, F., 2005. Global health impacts Modelling and Software, Toulouse, FRANCE, July 10 - 14, 2016. Manno,
of floods: epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiol Rev 27, 36–46. Switzerland, 17. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration – Jackson, L.E., Daniel, J., McCorkle, B., Sears, A., Bush, K.F., 2013. Linking ecosystem
Guidelines For Computing Crop Water Requirements – FAO Irrigation and Drainage services and human health: the Eco-Health Relationship Browser. Int J Public Health
Paper 56. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 58, 747–755.
Bell, J.F., Wilson, J.S., Liu, G.C., 2008. Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in Johnston, R.J., Wainger, L.A., 2015. Benefit Transfer for Ecosystem Service Valuation: an
Body Mass Index of children and youth. Am J Prev Med 35 (6), 547–553. Introduction to Theory and Methods. In: Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S.,
Bergström, S., 1995. The HBV model. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.), Computer Models of Brouwer, R. (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide
Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO. For Researchers and Practitioners, pp. 237–273.
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city, does vegetation
inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available reduce crime? Environment and Behaviour 33, 343–367.
techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365, 105–122. Lieberman, G.A., Hoody, L.L., 1998. Closing the Achievement gap: Using the
Bolte, J., Vache, K., 2010. Envisioning Puget Sound Alternative futures: PSNERP Final Environment As an Integrating Context For Learning. State Education and
Report. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Environment Roundtable, Poway, California, USA.
Bolte, J., 2014. Envision (Version 7): A Guide to Application Development. Biological Lim, K.J., Engel, B.A., Muthukrishnan, S., Harbor, J., 2006. Effects of initial abstraction
and Ecological Engineering Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. and urbanization on estimated runoff using CN technology. J. Am. Water Resour.
Bruins, R.J.F., Canfield, T.J., Duke, C., Kapustka, L., Nahlik, A.M., Schäfer, R.B., 2017. Assoc. 42, 629–643.
Using ecological production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem Louv, R., 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-deficit
services. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13 (1), 52–61. Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Buck, K., Summers, K., Smith, L., Harwell, L., 2018. Application of the Human Well-Being Lovett, G.M., 1994. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients and pollutants in North America:
Index to Sensitive Population Divisions: a Children’s Well-Being Index Development. an ecological perspective. Ecol. Appl. 4, 629–650.
Child Indicators Research, 11. Springer Netherlands, Netherlands, pp. 1249–1280. Luber, G., Knowlton, K., Balbus, J., Frumpkin, H., et al., 2014. Chapter 9: Human Health.
Corell, R.W., D. Liverman, K. Dow, K.L. Ebi, K. Kunkel, L.O. Mearns, and J. Melillo, 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate
Ch. 29: research needs for climate and global change assessments. climate change Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.)
impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds.
Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research McMichael, A.J., Campbell-Lendrum, D.H., Corvalan, C.F., Ebi, K.L., Githeko, A.K.,
Program, 707-718. Scheraga, J.D., Woodward, A., 2003. Climate Change and Human Health Risks and
CRWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2013. Total Maximum Responses. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Daily Loads for Nitrogen Compounds and Orthophosphate for the Lower Salinas Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
River and Reclamation Canal Basin, and the Moro Cojo Slough Subwatershed, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Monterey County, California: Appendix F: Export Coefficient Model. CRWQCB Moyer, D.L., Hyer, K.E., 2003. Use of the Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN
Central Coast Region, San Luis Obispo, CA. and Bacterial Source Tracking for Development of the Fecal Coliform Total
Cubasch, U., Meehl, G., Boer, G., Stouffer, R., Dix, M., Noda, A., Senior, C., Raper, S., Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For Christians Creek, Augusta County, Virginia. Water
Yap, K., 2001. Projections of future climate change. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Resources Investigations Report 03-4162. US Geological Survey, Richmond,
Griggs, D.J., Noquer, M., Van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. Virginia.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking
pp. 525–582. individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour.
Curriero, F.C., Patz, J.A., Rose, J.B., Lele, S., 2001. The association between extreme Environ Behav 41, 715–740.
precipitation and waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States, 1948–1994. Am NLCD (National Land Cover Database), 2011. NLCD 2001 Land cover (2011 Edition).
J Public Health 91, 1194–1199. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) www.mrlc.gov.
Cutter, S.L., Solecki, W., Bragado, N., Carmin, J., Fragkias, M., Ruth, M., Wilbanks, T.J., Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., Hoehn, R.E., Walton, J.T., Bond, J., 2008.
2014. Ch. 11: Urban Systems, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability. Climate Change A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services.
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J. M. Melillo, Arboric Urban For 34, 347–358.
Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council), 2005. Evaluating Sustainability of Projected
Program, 282-296. Water Demands in 2050 Under Climate Change Scenarios. NRDC.
Dyrbye, L.N., Satele, D., Shanafelt, T., 2016. Ability of a 9-item well-being index to Oosterbroek, B., de Kraker, J., Huynen, M.M., Martens, P., 2016. Assessing ecosystem
identify distress and stratify quality of life in US workers. JOccupEnviron Med 58, impacts on health: a tool review. Ecosystem Services 17, 237–254.
810–817. Orlando, J.L., Yee, S.H., Harwell, L.C., Smith, L.M., 2017. Technical Guidance for
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. Human Well-Being Index Map Server Constructing a Human Well-being Index (HWBI): A Puerto Rico Example. U.S.
https://gispub.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/ORD/HumanWellBeingIndex/ Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R-16/363.
MapServer/. Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H.M., Vicente, L., 2005. Ecosystem services and human
Escobedo, F.J., Clerici, N., Staudhammer, C.L., Corzo, G.T., 2015. Socio-ecological well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and
Dynamics and Inequality in Bogota, Columbia’s public Urban Forests and Their Society 10, 14-article 14.
Ecosystem services. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, pp. 1040–1053. Pinto, R., de Jonge, V.N., Marques, J.C., 2014. Linking biodiversity indicators, ecosystem
Failing, L., Gregory, R., Harstone, M., 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in functioning, provision of services and human well-being in estuarine systems:
environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecological application of a conceptual framework. Ecol Indic 36, 644–655.
Esconomics 64, 47–60. Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.
Ferrara, A.R., Nistico, R., 2015. Regional well-being indicators and dispersion from a B., 2014. Food security and food production systems. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
multidimensional perspective: evidence from Italy. Annals of Regional Science 55, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
373–420. Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel On
Fulford, R.S., Russell, M., Harvey, J., Harwell, M.C., 2016. Sustainability At the Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
Community Level: Searching for Common Ground As a Part of a National Strategy T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.
For Decision Support. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/ N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge
600/R-16/178. University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
Gordon, L., Folke, C., 2000. Ecohydrological Landscape Management For Human Well- Russell, M., Teague, A., Alvarez, F., Dantin, D., Osland, M., Harvey, J., Nestlerode, J.,
Being, 25. Water International, pp. 178–184. Rogers, J., Jackson, L., Pilant, D., Genthner, F., Lewis, M., Spivak, A., Harwell, M.,
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D., 2012. Neale, A., 2013. Neighborhood Scale Quantification of Ecosystem Goods and
Structured Decision-making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management services. EPA/600/R-13/295. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Choices. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK. Research and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
Groffman, P.M., Kareiva, P., Carter, S., Grimm, N.B., Lawler, J., Mack, M., Matzek, V., Schaich, H., Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural
Tallis, H., 2014. Ch. 8: Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. Climate landscape research. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 19, 269–277.
Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J. M. Smith, A., Yee, S.H., Russell, M., Awkerman, J., Fisher, W.S., 2017. Linking ecosystem
Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research services supply to stakeholder values in Guánica Bay Watershed, Puerto Rico. Ecol
Program. DOI:10.7930/J0TD9V7H. Indic 74, 371–383.
Guhn, M., Gadermann, A.M., Zumbo, B.D., 2010. Education: A report of the Canadian Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., Smith, H.M., Harwell, L.C., Summers, J.K., 2013. Relating
Index of Wellbeing (CIW). University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British ecosystem services to domains of human well-being: foundation for a US index. Ecol
Columbia, Canada. Indic 28, 79–90.
Hales, D., Hohenstein, W., Bidwell, M.D., Landry, C., McGranahan, D., Molnar, J., Smith, L.M., Smith, H.M., Case, J.L., Harwell, L.C., Summers, J.K., Wade, C., 2012.
Morton, L.W., Vasquez, M., Jadin, J., 2014. Ch. 14: Rural Communities. Climate Indicators and Methods for Constructing a U.S. Human Well-Being Index (HWBI) For
Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J. M. Ecosystem Services Research. EPA/600/R-12/023.
Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Smith, L.M., Wade, C.M., Straub, K.R., Harwell, L.C., Case, J.L., Harwell, M., Summers, J.
Program, 333-349. K., 2014a. Indicators and Methods for Evaluating Economic, Ecosystem, and Social
Services Provisioning. EPA/600/R-14/184.
19
Smith, L.M., Harwell, L., Summers, J.K., Smith, H.M., Wade, C.M., Straub, K.R., Case, J. USDA & NRCS, 1986. Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds. United States Department
L., 2014b. A U.S. Human Well-Being Index (HWBI) For Multiple scales: Linking of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Conservation
Service Provisioning to Human Well-Being Endpoints (2000-2010). EPA/600/R-14/ Engineering Division, Technical Release, p. 55.
223. USFS (US Forest Service), 2016. Forest Inventory Data Online https://apps.fs.fed.us/fia/
Smith, L.M., Wade, C.M., Case, J.L., Harwell, L.C., Straub, K.R., Summers, J.K., 2014c. fido/index.html.
Evaluating the transferability of a U.S. Human Well-Being Index (HWBI) framework USGS (US Geological Survey) Gap Analysis Program. 2011. National GAP vertebrate
to native American populations. Soc Indic Res 124, 157–182. species distribution model. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/species.
Sohl, T.L., Sleeter, B.M., Sayler, K.L., Bouchard, M.A., Reker, R.R., Bennett, S.L., USGS, 2016. Land Cover Modeling Methodology - The FORE-SCE Model https://
Sleeter, R.R., Kanengieter, R.L., Zhu, Z., 2012. Spatially explicit land-use and land- landcover-modeling.cr.usgs.gov/methods.php.
cover scenarios for the great plains of the United States. Agric Ecosyst Environ 153, Wainger, L., Mazzotta, M., 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a
1–15. framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ Manage 48
Sohl, T.L., Wimberly, M.C., Radeloff, V.C., Theobald, D.M., Sleeter, B.M., 2016. (4), 710–733.
Divergent projections of future land use in the United States arising from different Wilby, R.L., 2008. Constructing Climate Change Scenarios of Urban Heat Island Intensity
models and scenarios. Ecol Modell 337, 281–297. and Air Quality, 35. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,
Speers, A.E., Besedin, E.Y., Palardy, J.E., Moore, C., 2016. Impacts of climate change and pp. 902–919.
ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: an integrated ecological-economic model. Williams, J.R., 1975. Sediment-yield Prediction With Universal Equation Using Runoff
Ecol Econ 128, 33–43. Energy factor, Present and Prospective Technology For Predicting Sediment Yield
Summers, J.K., Harwell, L.C., Smith, L.M., 2016. A model for change: an approach for and sources. ARS-S-40. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
forecasting well-being from service-based decisions. Ecol Indic 69, 295–309. Brooksville, FL, pp. 244–252.
Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Yee, S., Bousquin, J., Bruins, R., Canfield, T.J., DeWitt, T.H., de Jesús-Crespo, R.,
Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Dyson, B., Fulford, R., Harwell, M., Hoffman, J., Littles, C.J., Johnston, J.M.,
Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., McKane, R.B., Green, L., Russell, M., Sharpe, L., Seeteram, N., Tashie, A.,
Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Williams, K., 2017. Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Griffin, R., Glowinski, K., Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M., Mandle, L., Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Griffin, R., Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., 2013. InVEST 3.0.0 User’s Guide. The Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R-17/266.
Natural Capital Project, Stanford. Yoskowitz, D.W., Werner, S.R., Carollo, C., Santos, C., Washburn, T., Isaksen, G.H., 2016.
Tol, R.S.J., 2018. The economic impacts of climate change. Rev Environ Econ Policy 12, Gulf of Mexico offshore ecosystem services: relative valuation by stakeholders. Mar
4–25. Policy 66, 132–136.
Tuya, F., Haroun, R., Espino, F., 2014. Economic assessment of ecosystem services: Ziska, L., Knowlton, K., Rogers, C., et al., 2011. Recent warming by latitude associated
monetary value of seagrass meadows for coastal fisheries. Ocean Coast Manag 96, with increased length of ragweed pollen season in central North America. Proc Natl
181–187. Acad Sci U S A 108 (10), 4248–4251.
US Census Bureau, 2010. American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov.
20

2021 - Projecting Effects of Land Use Change On Human Well-Being Through Changes in Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - Projecting Effects of Land Use Change On Human Well-Being Through Changes in Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - Projecting Effects of Land Use Change On Human Well-Being Through Changes in Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological Modelling 440 (2021) 109358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes

1. Introduction agriculture, and lead to alterations in biodiversity (Groffman et al.,

We used the Envision spatially-explicit modeling platform (Bolte and

StdDev 0 0 0 0 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48

Ecological Modelling 440 (2021) 109358

Appendix A3 Appendix References

You might also like