AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE

APPROACH TO

LANDSCAPE DESIGN

AND MANAGEMENT

Developed by Cardno, John Deere, Syngenta, and the World Resources Institute

Suzanne Ozment, Doug MacNair, Steve Bartell, Barbara Wyse, Rush Childs, Sabina Sheik

Designed and managed landscapes in the U.S.

• 40 million acres of managed turfgrass

• Largest irrigated crop

• 3rd largest overall crop

• Largest land cover in the Chesapeake

• Landscaping $40 billion annual industry

Sustainability efforts influencing landscaping

Building codes

• US Green Building Council

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Regulations and restrictions

• EPA WaterSense Program

• State and municipal watering restrictions

• EPA Guidance on Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay

Non-government sustainability initiatives

• Environmental Institute for Golf

• Sustainable Sites Initiative

• Field to Market: Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture

• etc

Current sustainability measures focus on inputs

Park Residental lawn Golf course

Water use

Plant protectant

Fertilizer

*Illustrative

An ecosystem services approach

Recreation and aesthetic values

Water purification

Air quality regulation

Local climate control

Soil and water retention

An ecosystem services approach can measure

landscape performance

Water quality

Carbon

Air quality

Net

sin

k N

et

so

urc

e

*Illustrative

Components of a Useful Framework

Comprehensive • Unites environmental, social, and economic values

• On-site and landscape-level

• Looks at the distribution of costs and benefits across stakeholders

Policy relevant • Based on sound science and economics

• Outcomes-focused

• Uses metrics and data that are defensible and easily obtainable

Useful for benchmarking and communications • Metrics are sensitive to change

• Life cycle

• Site-specific

The Ecosystem Service Framework for

Landscape Design and Management

Step 1: Identify

potentially affected

ecosystem services

1.a. Identify the key ecosystem services potentially affected by

landscape management.

1.b. Where possible, specify the cause and effect relationships

among management practices and key ecosystem services.

Step 2: Quantify

ecosystem services

2.a. Choose metrics and methods of quantification.

2.b. Quantify the flow of ecosystem services on the landscape.

Step 3: Value benefits

of ecosystem services

3.a. Classify each priority ecosystem service as providing value to

private resource owners and/or to the broader public to avoid

double counting or omission of benefits.

3.b. Use economic valuation methods that meet appropriate

validity criteria.

Applying the framework to residential

lawns and golf courses

Water quality

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @scottie32

Metric: Pounds of

nutrients added or

removed from water

runoff

Value: Avoided cost of

implementing

conventional water

treatment measures,

measured in dollars per

pound of nutrients

removed

From the literature:

Avoided costs of

phosphorus removal

may vary from $4 to

$505 per pound

Air quality

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @Leanne Surfleet

Metric: Tons of

particulate matter (PM)

added or removed from

the atmosphere annually

Value: Percentage

increase of property

value per ton of

particulate matter (PM)

removed

From the literature:

Reducing one ton of PM

is approximately $237

per house

Carbon sequestration

Metric: Tons of carbon

dioxide sequestered or

emitted per year

Value: Market value of

carbon, measured in

dollars per ton

sequestered

From the literature:

Voluntary market value

ranges from $9 to $26

per metric ton

Local climate control

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @elihpxe8

Metric: Avoided kilowatt

hours of air conditioning

per year

Value: Avoided kilowatt

hours of air conditioning

per year

From the literature:

Shade trees can reduce

air conditioning costs by

7-40%

Water retention

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @IRRI Images

Metric: Gallons of water

runoff stored or

generated per year

Value: Avoided costs of

implementing

stormwater

management practices,

measured in dollars per

gallon retained

From the literature:

On-lot bioretention areas

cost 15% to 40% less

compared to

conventional stormwater

management costs for

17 municipalities

Soil retention

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @andrewpaulcarr

Metric: Tons of soil

conserved or

released per year

Valuation: Avoided

cost of replacing

topsoil, measured in

dollars per cubic

yard

From the literature:

Topsoil costs $10-25

per cubic yard

Recreation and aesthetic values*

Photo Courtesy of Flickr: @rpscott123

Metric: Turfgrass

quality rating by

square footage

Value: Value above

cost from

expenditures on

lawns.

Challenge: Some

literature values

about property values

and open space.

Nothing on value to

homeowners.

Step 1: Identify

potentially affected

ecosystem services

Step 2: Quantify

ecosystem

services

Step 3: Value net benefits of ecosystem

service flows

Service Metric Possible valuation

measure

Value to

landowner

Value to

broader

public

Water quality Pounds of nutrients

added or removed from

water runoff

Avoided cost of implementing

conventional water treatment

infrastructure

x

Air quality

Tons of particulate

matter (PM) added or

removed from the

atmosphere

Percentage increase of property

value per household per ton of

particulate matter (PM) removed

from the air

x

Carbon

sequestration

Tons of carbon dioxide

sequestered or emitted

Market value of carbon, measured

in dollars per ton sequestered in a

carbon market

x

Local climate

control

Avoided kilowatt hours

of air conditioning

Avoided energy costs, measured

in dollars per kilowatt-hours

avoided

x x

Water retention Gallons of water runoff

stored or generated per

year

Avoided costs of implementing

conventional stormwater

management practices

x x

Soil retention Tons of soil conserved

or released Avoided cost of replacing topsoil x

Recreation and

aesthetic benefits

Turfgrass quality rating

by square footage

Percentage increase of property

value per additional square

footage of landscaping

x

Relevance to decision making

Strengthening the Business Case for Improved Environmental

Management

• Identifying cost-effective opportunities to achieve

environmental outcomes

• Identifying new revenue streams for landowners

• Improving marketability

Calculating Net-benefits

• And performance-based sustainability metrics

Managing Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services

• And optimize the provision of valuable ecosystem services

Methodological challenges

• Linking management practices to ecosystem services

provision

• Identifying metrics that hold cross-cutting relevance for

ecological, social, and economic values

• Selecting objective, quantifiable metrics

• Using average versus marginal (per-unit) values

• Normalizing values

• Site specificity

The Ecosystem Services Framework

for Landscape Design and Management

Step 1: Identify

potentially affected

ecosystem services

1.a. Identify the key ecosystem services potentially affected by

landscape management.

1.b. Where possible, specify the cause and effect relationships

among management practices and key ecosystem services.

Step 2: Quantify

ecosystem services

2.a. Choose metrics and methods of quantification by drawing on

environmental models, tools, and peer-reviewed studies.

2.b. Quantify the flow of ecosystem services on the landscape.

Step 3: Value benefits

of ecosystem services

3.a. Classify each priority ecosystem service as providing value to

private resource owners and/or to the broader public to avoid

double counting or omission of benefits.

3.b. Use strategic economic valuation methods that meet

appropriate validity.

Approach to Quantifying & Valuation of Ecosystem Services

Review of Ecosystem Services

The following classifications and descriptions of

ecosystem services were reviewed:

– Ecosystem Services Review (WRI 2008)

– Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005)

– Daily 1997; Daily et al. 2000

– deGroot et al. 2002

– Costanza et al. 2008, Costanza 1997

– Limburg et al. 2002

– National Academy of Science 2005

– Helliwell 1969

Key Ecosystem Service Categories

Golf courses – Regulating

– Supporting

– Habitat

– Recreation, aesthetics

Urban turfgrass – Regulating

– Supporting

– Aesthetics, recreation

Associated ecosystems – Regulating

– Supporting

– Habitat, landscape

– Recreation, aesthetics

– Education, science

Golf Ecosystem Services – Conceptual Model

Ecosystem Service

Golf

Importance

Rank

Feasibility,

Data

Availability

Rank

Brief description of algorithm for

quantifying ecosystem service

Units

Reference

Supporting

Primary production High High Product of annual net primary productivity

(metric tons C/acre) and total area (acres) for

each land-use type, summed over all land-

use types.

Metric tons

C/y

White et al.

1997;

Landsberg and

Waring 1997;

Gray and

Schlesinger

1981; Zirkle

2010; Peters

2009

Secondary production Medium Medium Product of annual secondary productivity

(metric tons C/acre) and total area (acres) for

each land-use type, summed over all land-

use types. Alternatively, 10% of annual net

primary productivity

Metric tons

C/y

Odum 1971

Nutrient cycling Medium Medium Nutrient cycling efficiency index: ratio of

amount cycled to total nutrients flowing

through the system.

unitless Patten et al.

1976

Decomposition Medum High Product of annual decomposition (metric tons

C/acre) and total area (acres) for each land-

use type, summed over all land-use types.

Metric tons

C/y

Kauer et al.

2009; Kop and

Guillard 2004

Estimating Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem

Service

Golf

Importance

Rank

Feasibility,

Data

Availability

Rank

Brief description of algorithm for quantifying

ecosystem service

Units

Reference

Regulating

Air quality Medium High O2 produced = 2.67 [(Σgolf land-use area . net C

sequestration rate) + (ΣAE land-use area . net C

sequestration rate)]

Metric

tons/y

Nowak et al.

2007;

Nowak and

Greenfield

2008-2010

Reports

Air quality Medium High Pollutant removed = (Σgolf land-use area . pollutant

removal rate) + (ΣAE land-use area . pollutant

removal rate)

Pollutants: CO, ozone, NO2, SO2

Metric

tons/y

Nowak et al.

2007;

Nowak and

Greenfield

2008-2010

Reports

Local climate Medium Medium Annual savings (cooling) in electricity converted to

equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions.

Examine CityGreen, LUMPS, and DOE-2 models

Metric tons

C/y

Water

storage,

supply

High High Water holding capacity based on site-specific soil

data and water budget. HYDRUS-2D model for

water storage on greens.

Regional/local characterization of supply.

Million

gals, (L)/y;

% of total

water

needs

Carrow and

Waltz 1985;

McCoy and

McCoy 2009

Water Quality High High Pesticide loadings from runoff calculated using

TurfPQ model.

Examine USEPA WASP, EXAMS, CADDIS; and

USGS LOADEST models

N, P, and K loadings based on empirical runoff

rates.

Consideration to grey water and water with higher

salinity.

Consideration to treatment reduction levels (load

and concentration), dissolved oxygen levels (DO)

and impacts to aquatic life (macroinvertebrates).

Metric

tons/y

Haith 2001;

Kelling and

Petersen

1975

Water runoff High High Apply the curve number equations (i.e., TR-55

model) from the TurfPQ model and local soil

conditions to estimate annual runoff from turfgrass.

Examine USEPA SWMM

Million

gals, (L)/y

Haith 2001;

Kramer et al.

2009

Soil retention,

erosion

control

High Medium Percentage of annual total suspended solids

removal determined empirically for ponds,

wetlands, and buffer strips

Eamine USGS LOADEST model

Metric

tons/y

NJDEP 2004

Estimating Ecosystem Services

Urban Ecosystem Services – Conceptual Model

Differences Between Golf and Urban Turf

Larger set of ecosystem services relevant to golf

courses and associated ecosystems than urban turf

Regulating and supporting process subsidies, as well as

habitat/landscape attributes, provided by associated

ecosystems to golf courses that are less relevant to

urban turf systems

Managed turfgrass becoming dominant urban land cover

Trained golf course agronomists versus private lawn care

Next steps

• Real-world application and case studies

• Broader industry consortium of partners to

develop the work further

• Valuation of recreation and aesthetic values

Lessons Learned

Thank you