Comparing the Applicability of Commonly Used Hydrological Ecosystem Services Models for Integrated Decision-Support

被引:38
|
作者
Lueke, Anna [1 ]
Hack, Jochen [2 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Darmstadt, Sect Engn Hydrol & Water Management, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Darmstadt, Inst Appl Geosci, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany
关键词
hydrological ecosystem services; hydrological modelling; decision support; model comparison; Nicaragua; ecosystem service quantification; river basin management; WATER ASSESSMENT-TOOL; SOIL; CONSERVATION; TRADEOFFS; SWAT;
D O I
10.3390/su10020346
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Different simulation models are used in science and practice in order to incorporate hydrological ecosystem services in decision-making processes. This contribution compares three simulation models, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, a traditional hydrological model and two ecosystem services models, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs model and the Resource Investment Optimization System model. The three models are compared on a theoretical and conceptual basis as well in a comparative case study application. The application of the models to a study area in Nicaragua reveals that a practical benefit to apply these models for different questions in decision-making generally exists. However, modelling of hydrological ecosystem services is associated with a high application effort and requires input data that may not always be available. The degree of detail in temporal and spatial variability in ecosystem service provision is higher when using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool compared to the two ecosystem service models. In contrast, the ecosystem service models have lower requirements on input data and process knowledge. A relationship between service provision and beneficiaries is readily produced and can be visualized as a model output. The visualization is especially useful for a practical decision-making context.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] THE DESIGN OF AN INTEGRATED GROUP DECISION-SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT
    NOORI, H
    R & D MANAGEMENT, 1995, 25 (03) : 309 - 322
  • [42] An integrated sustainability decision-support framework - Part I: Problem structuring
    Azapagic, A
    Perdan, S
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY, 2005, 12 (02): : 98 - 111
  • [43] An Integrated Information and Decision-Support System for the Management of Mass Casualty Incidents
    Berndt, Henrik
    Herczeg, Michael
    IFAC PAPERSONLINE, 2019, 52 (19): : 199 - 204
  • [44] An integrated sustainability decision-support framework - Part II: Problem analysis
    Azapagic, A
    Perdan, S
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY, 2005, 12 (02): : 112 - 131
  • [45] Applicability of decision support systems for integrated coastal zone management
    Van Kouwen, Frank
    Dieperink, Carel
    Schot, Paul
    Wassen, Martin
    COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2008, 36 (01) : 19 - 34
  • [46] Wood quality attribute models and their utility when integrated into density management decision-support systems for boreal conifers
    Newton, P. F.
    FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2019, 438 : 267 - 284
  • [47] The Crop Calculators - from Simulation Models to Usable Decision-Support Tools
    Li, F. Y.
    Jamieson, P. D.
    Zyskowski, R. F.
    Brown, H. E.
    Pearson, A. J.
    MODSIM 2007: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION: LAND, WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR SUSTAINABILITY, 2007, : 128 - 134
  • [48] Expert validation of prediction models for a clinical decision-support system in audiology
    Buhl, Mareike
    Akin, Guelce
    Saak, Samira
    Eysholdt, Ulrich
    Radeloff, Andreas
    Kollmeier, Birger
    Hildebrandt, Andrea
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [49] Knowledge management in healthcare: towards 'knowledge-driven' decision-support services
    Abidi, SSR
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2001, 63 (1-2) : 5 - 18
  • [50] Cost-benefit analysis: a decision-support tool or a venue for contesting ecosystem knowledge?
    Hockley, Neal
    ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 2014, 32 (02): : 283 - 300