Integrating stakeholder values with multiple attributes to quantify watershed performance

Abstract

[1] Integrating stakeholder values into the process of quantifying impairment of ecosystem functions is an important aspect of watershed assessment and planning. This study develops a classification and prioritization model to assess potential impairment in watersheds. A systematic evaluation of a broad set of abiotic, biotic, and human indicators of watershed structure and function was used to identify the level of degradation at a subbasin scale. Agencies and communities can use the method to effectively target and allocate resources to areas of greatest restoration need. The watershed performance measure (WPM) developed in this study is composed of three major components: (1) hydrologic processes (water quantity and quality), (2) biodiversity at a species scale (core and priority habitat for rare and endangered species and species richness) and landscape scale (impacts of fragmentation), and (3) urban impacts as assessed in the built environment (effective impervious area) and population effects (densities and density of toxic waste sites). Simulation modeling using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), monitoring information, and spatial analysis with GIS were used to assess each criterion in developing this model. Weights for attributes of potential impairment were determined through the use of the attribute prioritization procedure with a panel of expert stakeholders. This procedure uses preselected attributes and corresponding stakeholder values and is data intensive. The model was applied to all subbasins of the Chicopee River Watershed of western Massachusetts, an area with a mixture of rural, heavily forested lands, suburban, and urbanized areas. Highly impaired subbasins in one community were identified using this methodology and evaluated for principal forms of degradation and potential restoration policies and BMPs. This attribute-based prioritization method could be used in identifying baselines, prioritization policies, and adaptive community planning.

Urbanization effects on watershed habitat potential: a multivariate assessment of thresholds and interactions

“…Urbanization can be represented by several indicators that include percent vegetative cover, average building height, housing density (McIntyre et al, 2000), growth pattern (Ewing, 1997), population density, traffic frequency, road density, land cover type, study scale (Kotlier and Weins, 1990), and other urban landscape metrics (McGarigal and Marks, 1995;Hahs and McDonnell, 2006). Impervious cover of a subbasin represents the extent of the built environment and can represent urbanization in watersheds (Dow and DeWalle, 2000;Shriver and Randhir, 2006). We chose this indicator based on the ease of assessment with remotely sensed data, the direct impacts of impervious cover on hydrology, and the relevance of this indicator to watershed management (Shriver and Randhir, 2006).…”

“…Impervious cover of a subbasin represents the extent of the built environment and can represent urbanization in watersheds (Dow and DeWalle, 2000;Shriver and Randhir, 2006). We chose this indicator based on the ease of assessment with remotely sensed data, the direct impacts of impervious cover on hydrology, and the relevance of this indicator to watershed management (Shriver and Randhir, 2006). Impervious cover is available at a high-resolution GIS coverage compared to other indicators that are coarse in resolution and available at the scale of administrative boundaries-difficult to use in this research that aims at rapid assessment.…”

“…It has been found to be an appropriate unit to evaluate impacts of disturbance on ecosystem functions. A watershed scale also is useful for watershed planning and management, to prioritize watersheds, and to perform resource management (Shriver and Randhir, 2006). Pickett et al (1997) observes that a watershed approach can serve as a basis for organizing comparative studies of ecosystems exhibiting different degrees of urbanization.…”

Risk of impaired condition of watersheds containing National Forest lands

“…National-level analyses provide a broad picture of the extent of a problem and some indication of how different areas of the country compare, and also provide a context and starting point for making local decisions, but they lack sufficient data and knowledge about local conditions to be a sufficient basis for on-the-ground management decisions. These more local analyses may take advantage of modeling efforts that are possible with more site-specific data (for an example, see Arabi and others 2006) and may involve local efforts to assign weights (for an example, see Shriver and Randhir 2006). The watersheds range in size from 27 to 1652 km 2 , with a mean of 511 km 2 .…”

Improving Identification of Areas for Ecological Restoration for Conservation by Integrating USLE and MCDA in a GIS-Environment: A Pilot Study in a Priority Region Northern Mexico

“…There is an increasing interest in preventing, mitigating and reversing damage to ecosystems [4,5]. So, a number of approaches to prioritize sites requiring actions for conservation/restoration based on different considerations are reported i.e., carbon stock [6][7][8][9][10], sediment retention [11][12][13][14] and biodiversity [15][16][17]. In this sense, some approaches have been developed to prioritize areas for restoration focusing on protecting those places that are special, mainly due to a benefit they are providing.…”