SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND … · SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND...

SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND IMPLICATIONS

FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT1

Antonio J Castro Caryn C Vaughn Jason P Julian and Marina Garcıa-Llorente2

ABSTRACT We performed a sociocultural preference assessment for a suite of ecosystem services provided bythe Kiamichi River watershed in the south-central United States a region with intense water conflict The goalwas to examine how a social assessment of services could be used to weigh tradeoffs among water resource usesfor future watershed management and planning We identified the ecosystem services beneficiaries groups ana-lyzed perception for maintaining services assessed differences in the importance and perceived trends forecosystem services and explored the perceived impact on ecosystem services arising from different watershedmanagement scenarios Results show habitat for species and water regulation were two ecosystem services allbeneficiaries agreed were important The main discrepancies among stakeholder groups were found for water-related services The identification of potential tradeoffs between services under different flow scenarios pro-motes a dynamic management strategy for allocating water resources one that mitigates potential conflictsWhile it is widely accepted the needs of all beneficiaries should be considered for the successful incorporation ofecosystem services into watershed management the number of studies actually using the sociocultural perspec-tive in ecosystem service assessment is limited Our study demonstrates it is both possible and useful to quan-tify social demand of ecosystem services in watershed management

(KEY TERMS Oklahoma water resource management river systems Native American perceptions nonmone-tary valuation water conflicts)

Castro Antonio J Caryn C Vaughn Jason P Julian and Marina Garcıa-Llorente 2015 Social Demand forEcosystem Services and Implications for Watershed Management Journal of the American Water ResourcesAssociation (JAWRA) 1-13 DOI 1011111752-168812379

INTRODUCTION

Freshwater is vital for both humans and fishwild-life but humans have often prioritized freshwater foreconomic development at the expense of ecosystemhealth (Vitousek et al 1997 Baron et al 2002)

Healthy freshwater ecosystems provide essentialecosystem services that benefit society (Braumanet al 2007) These include (1) provisioning servicesobtained directly from the ecosystem such as drinkingwater and irrigation (2) regulating services such aswater regulation and quality habitat and air qualityand (3) cultural services which are nonmaterial ben-

1Paper No JAWRA-14-0170-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) Received August 14 2014 acceptedOctober 20 2015 copy 2015 American Water Resources Association Discussions are open until six months from issue publication

2Assistant Research Professor (Castro) Oklahoma Biological Survey Department of Biology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Gradu-ate Program University of Oklahoma 11 Chesapeake Street Norman Oklahoma 73019 and Department of Biological Sciences Idaho StateUniversity Pocatello ID 83209 Full Professor (Vaughn) Oklahoma Biological Survey Department of Biology and Ecology and EvolutionaryBiology Graduate Program University of Oklahoma 11 Chesapeake Street Norman Oklahoma 73019 Associate Professor (Julian) Depart-ment of Geography Texas State University San Marcos Texas 78666 and Postdoctoral Research Associate (Garcıa-Llorente) Applied Researchand Agricultural Extension Department Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA) 28800 Alcalade Henares Spain (E-MailCastro castroresearchgmailcom)

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION JAWRA1

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

efits that people obtain from ecosystems through spir-itual enrichment cognitive development reflectionrecreation and esthetic experiences (MEA 2005)The ecosystem service approach is useful for decision-making in conservation actions and natural resourcemanagement (Harrison 2010) because it enablesfocusing on ecosystemsmdashhuman well-being interlink-ages by translating ecosystem properties into humanneeds (Castro et al 2011) Ecosystem service prefer-ence assessment encompasses many specialties rang-ing from biophysical quantifications to socioculturalsurveys to economic assessment While much workhas been done on quantifying biophysical propertiesof ecosystems and their potential economic value rel-atively little attention has been given to societyrsquospreferences and perceptions for ecosystem services(Castro et al 2013)

Stakeholders perceive value demand and priori-tize ecosystem services in different ways which canbe quantified as the social demand for ecosystem ser-vices (Martın-Lopez et al 2013) Analysis of thesocial demand for ecosystem services is a newapproach to link an ecosystemrsquos capacity to provideservices with human needs and desires for those ser-vices (Castro et al 2013 Martın-Lopez et al 2013)and highlights that the value of healthy ecosystemsis dependent not only on ecosystem properties butalso on societal needs (Paetzold et al 2010 Syrbeand Walz 2012 Paavola and Hubacek 2013) Socialdemand for ecosystem services can be explored usingnonmonetary indicators including assessment of peo-plersquos perceptions of the importance of different ser-vices (Martın-Lopez et al 2012)

Watershed management has traditionally maxi-mized the production of one ecosystem service (egenergy or agriculture production) resulting in declinesin other services (eg water quantity and quality) andconflicts between different interest groups (Vermeulenand Koziell 2002 Gordon et al 2010) Including apriori analyses of the tradeoffs among various ecosys-tem services as part of watershed management plan-ning should improve the provision of ecosystemservices for all stakeholders and decrease conflictSuch analyses should include an assessment of socialdemand for services however studies including asociocultural perspective in service assessment acrosswatersheds are rare and the techniques are not as for-malized as for economic assessments (Morton and Pad-gitt 2005 Castro et al 2013 Kelemen et al 2014)

Here we assess the social demand for ecosystemservices in a large watershed with intense conflictover water supplies that potentially provide manyecosystem services for competing stakeholders andcompeting regions We used the Kiamichi Riverwatershed in the south-central United States (US)as a case study to examine how a sociocultural

assessment of ecosystem services across its watershedand future service area (Oklahoma City via inter-basin transfers) could be used to weigh tradeoffsamong water resource uses to inform managers forfuture watershed management and planning As faras we are aware this is the first valuation of water-shed ecosystem services in this region We (1) identi-fied and characterized ecosystem beneficiary (ESB)types according to how they use and perceive ecosys-tem services (2) analyzed the factors underlying per-ceptions and preferences for maintaining services (3)assessed differences in the importance and perceivedtrends for ecosystem services and (4) explored theimpact on ecosystem services arising from differentwatershed management scenarios

METHODS

The Kiamichi River and Water Conflict

The Kiamichi River in southeastern Oklahoma is amajor tributary of the Red River with a drainage areaof 4650 km2 (Figure 1) The watershed is 64 forest18 pasture 11 grasslandshrubland 3 urban and1 wetlands according to the 2006 National LandCover Dataset Open water covers almost 3 of thewatershed with virtually all being Sardis and Hugoreservoirs (detailed below) Urban land use only makesup a fraction of a percent of total land area While mostof the watershed is temperate deciduous forest(primarily oak-hickory) there are several conifer plan-tation forests across the watershed Its steep andrugged terrain has limited major row crop agriculturethere are no nearby major cities or interstates andhuman population density is low (56 peoplekm2)(Matthews et al 2005) This lack of development inthe watershed has left the Kiamichi River with rela-tively pristine water and high aquatic biodiversityincluding 86 fish species and 31 mussel species three ofwhich are federally listed as endangered (Atkinson andVaughn 2015 Vaughn and Pyron 1995 Vaughn 2000Matthews et al 2005 Galbraith et al 2008) Althoughthe river is considered a major water supply for thesouth-central US it is particularly vulnerable todroughts and heat waves because it is shallow with highrates of evapotranspiration (Covich et al 1997 Mulhol-land et al 1997) and because organisms such as fishand mussels cannot migrate northward due to the west-to-east drainage (Matthews and Zimmerman 1990)

The Kiamichi watershed which lies within aNative American jurisdictional area (the ChoctawNation) is at the center of intense regional conflictover water use and governance The Kiamichi River

JAWRA JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION2

CASTRO VAUGHN JULIAN AND GARCIA-LLORENTE

and its discharge regime are influenced by two USArmy Corps of Engineers dams mainstem Hugo Dam(operational in 1974 with a maximum storage capac-ity of 1572 km3) and Sardis Dam (operational in1983 with a maximum storage capacity of 0908 km3)which is a tributary impoundment that can providealmost all of the flow to downstream reaches duringintense droughts (Figure 1) Together these reser-voirs are the water supply for people in 29 Oklahomacounties Water availability to these reservoirs is pre-dicted to decrease over the next 25 years because ofincreased drought and increased water usage from anincreasing human population Current and plannedinterbasin water transfers will extract hundreds ofthousands of acre-feet of freshwater per year out ofsoutheastern Oklahoma with 0271 km3year goingto Oklahoma City alone by 2050 via the AtokaPipeline Water from these reservoirs is desired bymultiple entities (North Texas Water District Okla-homa City and other central Oklahoma cities andsoutheast Oklahoma residents which include Chicka-saw and Choctaw nations) and is the subject of multi-ple ongoing discussions and litigation over who getsto use and profit from this water Operation of thesereservoirs has negatively impacted aquatic life inrecent decades (Vaughn et al 2015) For example indrought years water has been held in Sardis Lakerather than being released to flow downstream Thishas occurred during the hot summer months and hasled to drying of the lower Kiamichi River high watertemperatures (gt40degC) and massive freshwater mus-sel mortality (Galbraith et al 2010 Allen et al2013 Atkinson et al 2014)

Sampling Strategy and Questionnaire Design

In summer 2013 we sampled people consideredbeneficiaries of ecosystem services (ESBs) providedby the Kiamichi River watershed We conducted 505individual face-to-face surveys at 30 sites in thewatershed (Figure 1) Individuals were randomlyselected from populated areas within the watershed(small towns and tourist locations total population of146000) and Oklahoma City (including publiclibraries and parks restaurants academic institu-tions and shopping areas total population of700000) and covered a wide range of ESBsrsquo back-grounds We had no contact with any of the inter-viewees in advance of our surveys

Respondents were asked to participate in the studyand to respond to a survey related to environmentalissues in the area We informed them that allresponses were anonymous that we just wanted toknow their opinions and that there were no rightanswers Interviewees included stakeholders residingin the watershed tourists business visitors watermanagers and experts and potential water users inOklahoma City We also conducted interviews at sixsites around Oklahoma City because Oklahoma Cityuses the water in Sardis Lake The questionnaireincluded 27 questions in different sections (Appen-dix 1) (1) characteristics of the respondent and thepurpose of their visit to (or experiences with) thewatershed (2) preferences for ecosystem services andtheir trends over the last 10 years (3) perceivedimpacts of different water flow scenarios on services(4) environmental attitudes and environmental

Texas

Arkan

sas

9785 W3556 N

3356 N9437 W

Sardis Lake

HugoLake

FIGURE 1 Kiamichi River Watershed Study Area The Atoka Pipeline delivers water from southeast Oklahomato Oklahoma City Current extent of pipeline is shown There are plans to extend it to the Kiamichi River


SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

knowledge and (5) socioeconomic data We consideredwater flow to be the main driver affecting the deliv-ery of ecosystem services and thus we explored howESBs perceived services under four different flow sce-narios (described below) We showed stakeholderspanels illustrating different ecosystem services andwater flow conditions (Appendices 2 and 3) Finallythe survey included various case-based follow-upquestions

Identification and Characterization of EcosystemService Beneficiaries (ESBs)

To characterize ESB groups we classified allrespondents according to where they reside andorthe reason they were in the watershed We also inter-viewed professionals with expertise in the biophysi-cal social and economic aspects of the Kiamichiwatershed (eg biologists climatologists hydrolo-gists ecologists sociologists anthropologists andwatershed managers) Then to characterize eachintervieweersquos sociocultural and economic status weasked about the nature of their visit environmentalattitude environmental knowledge and social andeconomic characteristics of their households (Appen-dix 4) We also explored the sense of place of respon-dents by asking about the geographic location withwhich they identified most (see the questionnaire inAppendix 1)

Ranking Preferences and Perceived Trends ofEcosystem Services

Social preferences for different ecosystem servicescan be explored through ranking (Bateman et al2002 Agbenyega et al 2009) Our study includedeight categories of ecosystem services in three classes(Appendix 2) provisioning (freshwater provision)regulating (water regulation water quality air qual-ity and habitat for species) and cultural services(recreation cultural heritage and local identity)

We asked interviewees if they felt that the Kiami-chi River provided benefits that contribute to theirwell-being and to the populationrsquos well-being (verymuch much not very much and nothing) (Oteros-Rozas et al 2013) and asked them to provide exam-ples of potential benefits All respondents were askedto indicate the relative importance and perceivedtrend of each service (eg decreased the sameincreased or donrsquot know) over the past 10 years Weselected a 10-year window because it is long enoughto capture meaningful environmental change (ie notjust year-to-year variability) yet short enough toaccurately reflect respondentsrsquo recent memory To do

this respondents were asked to select from the ser-vices panel (Appendix 1) four services most impor-tant to them and to rank them from 1 to 4(important to essential services) From this informa-tion we created an ordinal measure of the impor-tance of each service to each respondent (Winkler2006) Then we analyzed the differences in serviceperceptions across ESBs groups with a nonparamet-ric Kruskal-Wallis test incorporating the Bonferronicorrection followed by Dunnrsquos multiple comparisontest as the variables were non-normally distributed(Martın-Lopez et al 2012)

Influence of Different Water Flow Scenarios onEcosystem Services

We explored social perceptions about how ecosys-tem services might be impacted by different riverflows Based on flow categories that are relevant tostream ecological functioning recreation and watermanagement (Richter et al 1996) we used fourwater flow scenarios in our survey (Appendix 3) andanalyses no water flow (dry riverbed 0 m3s) lowwater flow (lt25th percentile 14 m3s) high waterflow (gt75th percentile 32 m3s) and floods (gt2-yearrecurrence interval 685 m3s) These flow categorieswere considered as both historical conditions andfuture water management scenarios All respondentswere asked how these different water flow scenarioswould affect ecosystem services with the explanationthat impacts could be positive negative or null Foreach scenario respondents were asked to choose amaximum of two services that were either positivelyor negatively impacted and assign an intensity scorefrom 1 (minimum intensity) to 10 (maximum inten-sity) We then used spider (radial) diagrams (Quin-tas-Soriano et al 2014) to compare the perceivedpositive and negative impacts of each water flow sce-nario on ecosystem services

RESULTS


Our characterization of ESBs allowed us to classifythe 505 respondents into five groups (1) watershedresidents (44 respondents residing in the water-shed) (2) business visitors (55 respondents in thewatershed on business and not residing in the water-shed) (3) tourists (10 respondents visiting thewatershed for vacation or recreation) (4) Oklahoma



City (OKC) metropolitan area residents (29 peoplewho were interviewed in Oklahoma City not in theKiamichi watershed) and (5) experts (105 profes-sionals with expertise in biophysical social or eco-nomic aspects of watershed science) Table 1summarizes the sociocultural and economic character-istics of these ecosystem services beneficiaries groups

The majority of respondents from each ESB grouphad visited the Kiamichi watershed before this sur-vey except OKC residents (Table 1) Overall 66 ofrespondents had visited the Kiamichi River water-shed before this survey with most residents living inthe watershed for a long period (median = 27 years)and most nonresidents visiting the watershed on mul-tiple occasions for camping fishing and boatingThese statistics indicate that a majority of our inter-viewees were familiar with the watershed and itswater resources With respect to the geographicallocation the majority of ESBs connected with theirhome state particularly OKC residents at 49 Com-pared to OKC residents watershed residents had astronger connection to their regioncountytown Mostout-of-state visitors were from Texas Most ESBs(64) participated in either social or work associa-tions with 17 active in environmental associationsCaucasians (61) and Native American (22) werethe most common ethnic groups These percentagesapproximate the ethnic makeup of the county con-taining most of the watershed (Pushmataha County75 Caucasian 18 Native American United StatesCensus Bureau 2008) Sixty-eight percent of respon-dents had some college education (Table 1)

Perception of Ecosystem Services Importance andTrends

Of the 505 ESBs 485 (96) believed at some levelthat the Kiamichi River is ldquoproviding benefits thatare contributing to your well-being and the popula-tionrsquos well-beingrdquo with 80 of ESBs believing it pro-vides substantial benefits (ie very much Table 2)Only 8 ESBs said that no benefits were provided bythe Kiamichi and 12 ESBs did not answer the ques-tion When asked to give an example of a benefit pro-vided by the Kiamichi virtually all of those whoresponded gave an example related to waterresources (ie drinking water fishing recreation)Interestingly recreation was mentioned by 175 ESBsThese perceptions of how substantial benefits weredid vary by ESB groups (Table 2) In general OKCresidents and experts who had less attachment to thewatershed (eg less time spent in the area) foundthe ecosystem services provided by the Kiamichiwatershed to be less substantial compared to water-shed residents tourists and business visitors

When asked to choose between important and non-important ecosystem services the majority of ESBschose habitat for species water quality recreationand freshwater provision as the most important(Figure 2a) In contrast local identity and culturalheritage were rarely perceived as important Theecosystem service with the highest average impor-tance among all groups was habitat for species fol-lowed by freshwater provision water quality andrecreation (Figure 2b)

Ecosystem service beneficiary groups differed inhow they perceived the importance of specific ecosys-tem services (Table 3) OKC residents and expertsranked freshwater provision as the most importantservice while business visitors ranked this serviceas one of the least important Habitat for specieswas the most important service for business visitorsas well as for watershed residents Tourists rankedhabitat for species and recreation (essentially equal)as the most important service Watershed residentsalso ranked recreation relatively high while OKCresidents experts and business visitors ranked thisservice relatively low Significant differences amongstakeholdersrsquo views were found for freshwater provi-sion (Kruskal-Wallis test v2 = 4748 p lt 0001)water quality (v2 = 1441 p lt 0001) cultural her-itage (v2 = 1794 p lt 0001) recreation (v2 = 4297p lt 0001) local identity (v2 = 1537 p lt 0001) andair quality (v2 = 972 p lt 001) Overall provisioningservices were considered the most important byOKC residents and experts while regulating ser-vices were the most important for watershed resi-dents business visitors and tourists (Table 2)These latter three groups also ranked cultural ser-vices relatively high compared to OKC residents andexperts

Most respondents perceived that the services theyconsidered most important (habitat for species fresh-water provisioning and water quality) had declinedover the past decade while those services that werenot considered as important (cultural heritage andlocal identity) had remained stable or increased (Fig-ure 3) Respondents thought that freshwater provi-sioning had declined the most over the past 10 yearswhile local identity had increased the most Recre-ation water regulation and cultural heritage wereconsidered to be relatively stable over the past dec-ade Air quality was seen as stable by the highestportion of the population

Water Flow Impacts on Ecosystem Services

ESBs perceived ecosystem service benefits to beaffected by flow conditions (Figure 4) Generally ser-vices were perceived as negatively impacted under no



TABLE

1Description

ofSocio-C

ulturalandEconom

icCharacteristics

ofEcosystem

Services

Ben

eficiaries

(ESBs)

Mea

nvalues

are

follow

edbyastandard

dev

iation

inparentheses

(SD)

Variables

Watersh

ed

Residents

(n=226)

Tourists

(n=50)

Business

Visitors

(n=28)

OklahomaCity

Residents

(n=147)

Experts

(n=54)

Watershed

visitation

Visited

Kiamichi

watershed

before

91

78

64

27

59

Purp

oseof

visit

Livingin

thearea

Camping64fish

ing

33boa

ting18

Workingin

thearea

mdashWorkingin

thearea

How

manyyea

rshave

you

lived

atyou

rcu

rren

tresiden

ce

27(

18)

25(

11)

26(

13)

14(

11)

12(

13)

Environ

men

tal

activity

Belon

gto

anassociation

Social38

Work23

Other

44

Social44

Environ

men

tal45

Work8

Social23

Social33

Environ

men

tal15

Work36

Environ

men

tal7

Environ

men

tal8

Work22

Work17

Social5

Other

45

Other

46

Other

24

Other

14

Sen

seof

place

Localiden

tity

Oklahom

an29

American26

Oklahom

an32

Oklahom

an49

Oklahom

an28

From

you

rcounty

town21

Oklahom

an26

From

you

rcounty

town21

From

you

rcountytow

n16

American11

American15

From

you

rcounty

town12

American14

American10

From

you

rcountytow

n9

Other

34

Other

36

Other

32

Other

26

Other

52

Sociocu

ltural

Agein

yea

rs440

(159)

500

(184)

410

(121)

340

(145)

430

(138)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

43

Fem

ale

54

Fem

ale

22

Fem

ale

37

Fem

ale

52

Male

57

Male

46

Male

78

Male

63

Male

48

Familysize

(adults)

30

(21)

26

(21)

25

(2)

27

(22)

24

(19)

Ethnic

back

ground

White

Caucasian59

White

Caucasian65

White

Caucasian69

White

Caucasian53

White

Caucasian83

NativeAmerican28

NativeAmerican27

NativeAmerican19

NativeAmerican19

Multi-racial6

Multiracial7

Multiracial2

Multiracial8

Black

African-

American10

NativeAmerican4

Black

African-

American3

Other

6

Black

African-

American4

Multi-racial6

Black

African-

American2

Other

3

AsianIn

dian2

Other

6

Other

10

Lev

elof

education

University

56High

school43Primary

school1

University

42High

school56Primary

school2

University

77

Highschool23

University

82

Highschool17

University

100

Econom

icNet

hou

seholdannual

income

$41972

$45400

$44286

$43542

$60200



TABLE 2 The Perception of Ecosystem Services by Different Ecosystem Services Beneficiary (ESB) GroupsN is the number of people interviewed in each ESB group

Ecosystem Services Perception ( within each group of stakeholders)

Ecosystem ServicesBeneficiaries (ESBs) N

of ESBs PerceivedKiamichi River ProvidesSubstantial Benefits1

of ESBs PerceivedProvisioning Servicesas Most Important

of ESBs PerceivedRegulating Servicesas Most Important

of ESBs PerceivedCultural Servicesas Most Important

Watershed residents 226 839 274 491 230Tourists 50 898 280 420 300Business visitors 28 965 107 607 286OKC residents 147 706 442 401 143Experts 54 755 463 426 93

1These are ESBs that answered ldquovery muchrdquo to the question ldquoDo you think the Kiamichi River and the area around it are providing benefitsthat are contributing to human wellbeingrdquo

0 100 200 300 400 500

Freshwater provision

Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Mean importance (from 1 min to 4 max)

a) b)

number of responsesNo selected as important

FIGURE 2 Overall Social Importance Perceived on Ecosystem Services Provided by the Kiamichi Watershed

TABLE 3 Differences in Perceived Importance for Ecosystem Services by Ecosystem Services Beneficiaries (ESBs) Importance is expressedas the sum of scores (ie 4 max 1 min 0 not selected as important) by the total of respondents Letters in parentheses represent statistically

different groups as identified by the Dunn test

Ecosystem ServicesBeneficiaries

FreshwaterProvision

Habitatfor Species Air Quality

WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage

LocalIdentity Recreation

Watershed residents 138 (A) 206 075 (A) 125 139 (A) 074 (A) 050 (A) 185 (A)Tourists 122 (AB) 194 078 (AB) 152 162 (AB) 056 (AB) 040 (A) 196 (A)Business visitors 067 (B) 225 121 (ABC) 153 175 (AB) 0286(B) 067 (AB) 160 (B)OKC residents 227 (C) 196 085 (BC) 135 189 (B) 040 (B) 019 (AB) 102 (B)Experts 253 (C) 192 051 (C) 120 200 (B) 050 (B) 016 (B) 098 (B)Kruskal-Wallis Test 4748 204 872 239 1441 1794 1537 4297

Notes The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn groups were used to compare services importance by ESBsStatistical significance = 10Statistical significance = 5Statistical significance = 1



and low water flow scenarios (gray area in spiderdiagrams) and as positively affected by high waterflows (white area in spider diagrams) Perceptionsabout the effect of floods on ecosystem services weremixed The services considered the most negativelyimpacted under no water flow were local identityfreshwater provisioning habitat for species andwater quality respectively (Figure 4a) Under lowwater flows water quality and freshwater provision-

ing were considered the most negatively impacted(Figure 4b) High water flows were perceived as hav-ing positive effects on freshwater provisioning airquality cultural heritage habitat for species (Fig-ure 4c) and negative effects on water quality andlocal identity (Figure 4c) Floods were perceived ashaving a strong positive impact on local identity anda negative influence on water quality cultural her-itage and recreation (Figure 4d)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies

Increase Stable Decrease

(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()

FIGURE 3 Perceived Changes in Ecosystem Services over the Last 10 Years The total number of respondents expressedas the total of population who considered negative positive or no impacts on services are shown in brackets

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

FIGURE 4 Perceived Tradeoffs between Ecosystem Services under Different Flow and Watershed Management ScenariosThe gray area (negative axis) in the spider diagram represents a relative negative impact as perceived

by the respondents The white area (positive axis) in spider diagrams represents a relative positive impact



DISCUSSION

Our aim in this study was to assess the socialdemand for ecosystem services across a large water-shed that provides valuable water resources to anenvironment with high yet threatened biodiversity(Matthews et al 2005 Galbraith et al 2008 Atkin-son et al 2014) and a regional population with vari-ous socioeconomic needs for these water resources(Barringer 2011 Hennessy-Fiske 2011) Our maininstrument was a survey of over 500 ESBs includingstakeholders residing outside of the watershed (78tourists and business visitors) who plan to use theseresources The practicality of performing sophisti-cated analyses on survey responses and obtainingmeaningful results depends to some degree on theintervieweesrsquo knowledge and appreciation of benefitsthey are receiving from these ecosystem services Wefound that 96 of interviewed ESBs thought that theKiamichi River watershed provides some level of ben-efits to society with four out of every five ESBsbelieving it provides substantial benefits (Table 2)When asked about which benefits were being pro-vided by the Kiamichi River and its watershed mostESBs gave an example related to water resources(ie drinking water fishing and recreational wateractivities) These figures demonstrate that despitevarying levels of education demography and culturalexperiences there is likely a high level of knowledgeand appreciation of the benefits provided by thiswatershed While the many recent meetings litiga-tion and media coverage of water issues in the regionhave likely heightened awareness we believe thatmost people already had some level of understandingof the benefits provided by healthy ecosystems (Brau-man et al 2007 Castro et al 2011 Quintas-Sorianoet al 2014) Further it is typical and intuitive forlocal residents and frequent visitors to have a height-ened awareness of their surroundings which likelyexplains the differences in perceptions between resi-dentsvisitors and OKC residents (Tables 2 and 3)

Our survey and analyses were designed to assesswhether different groups of ESBs perceive ecosystemservices differently and to what degree In generalvisitors to the watershed (tourists and those on busi-ness) and watershed residents had a different percep-tion of which ecosystem services (and their capacity)were being provided by the watershed compared toOKC residents For instance while visitors consideredhabitat for species as the most important service OKCresidents perceived freshwater provision as the mostimportant (Table 3) This result could be related to theintervieweersquos familiarity with the area given that only27 of OKC residents had visited this region (Table 1)Other studies support this finding that distance to a

place or lack of experiences in a place may limit theknowledge or modify the perception about the naturaland cultural values of that area (Hein et al 2006Garcıa-Llorente et al 2008 2011)

Identification of ESBs with different ecosystem pref-erences is important for identifying potential tradeoffsin the use of different natural resources to be imple-mented in land and water planning We found signifi-cant differences in how ecosystem services wereperceived among stakeholder groups (Table 2) In par-ticular OKC residents judged provisioning services asthe most important while watershed residents andbusiness visitors found regulating services to be moreimportant This result reveals a potential conflictbetween these two groups of beneficiaries Indeedthere are hotly contested and litigated disputes amongthe State of Oklahoma Oklahoma City northernTexas water districts the scientific community localresidents and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nationsover who owns the water in the watershed and whichuses should be prioritized (Barringer 2011 Hennessy-Fiske 2011 Chickasaw Nation et al vs Fallin et al2012 Oklahoma Water Resources Board vs Choctawand Chickasaw Nations of Oklahoma 2012) (All law-suits were put on hold in 2012 in hopes for mediationamong all parties involved and water rights continueto be disputed at the time of publication of this article)Given that central Oklahoma and northern Texas aretwo of the fastest growing regions in the nation andthat they do not have enough water supply to meetfuture demands (or currently in times of drought)these conflicts will continue until a strategy is devel-oped that meets the needs of all stakeholders Histori-cally economic development has been prioritized atthe expense of ecosystem health and broader societalneeds (Vitousek et al 1997 Baron et al 2002) Thesocial demand of watershed residents and visitors whodepend on regulating services such as water qualityand recreation for their livelihood needs to be incorpo-rated into water management to minimize conflict(Schmitz et al 2003 Morton and Padgitt 2005) Ourresults can inform policy makers about potential con-flicts of future water management plans by outliningthe tradeoffs between water usersrsquo perceptions regard-ing water-derived services (eg differences in percep-tions for provisioning services between OKC andwatershed residents)

The two ecosystem services that all stakeholdersagreed were important were habitat for species andwater regulation (Table 3) This is likely because themost important economic and recreational activities inthe Kiamichi watershed are hunting fishing andwater activities such as boating around Sardis andHugo reservoirs (Figure 1) In addition people tend toplace more value on services that they perceive as vul-nerable or declining Hunting and fishing depend on



habitat for species boating depends on water regula-tion and in turn habitat for species is also dependenton water regulation in this system The water nowimpounded by Sardis Lake historically provided ~24of the water flowing into the lower Kiamichi RiverHowever in recent drought years water has been heldin Sardis Lake rather than being released to flowdownstream This has occurred during the hot summermonths and has led to drying of the lower river andhigh water temperatures which has impacted aquaticlife (Vaughn et al 2015) and decreased tourism in thisarea

The ESBs in our survey also acknowledged negativeimpacts on ecosystem services under no and low waterflow scenarios (Figure 4) Water regulation waterquality freshwater provision habitat and recreationwere all perceived to be heavily degraded under nolowflow scenarios Our study region has experienced sev-eral severe hydrological droughts and accompanyingheat waves over the past 15 years (Vaughn et al2015) thus it is likely that our interviewees had expe-riences with water shortages and an accordingly highlevel of knowledge on how ecosystem services andhuman well-being are affected during these periods(Guo et al 2000 Ward et al 2000 Welsh et al 2013Quintas-Soriano et al 2014) Because flow regimes inKiamichi River can be manipulated via the large damsdiscussed above perceptions about water flow scenar-ios (Appendix 3) will also be useful for water manage-ment strategies Water demands from the KiamichiRiver are increasing especially with the plannedinterbasin water extractions (OWRB 2012) Watersupplies will continue to decrease during cyclicaldroughts and heat waves both of which are expectedto become more frequent and more intense (Seagerand Vecchi 2010 Mellilo et al 2014) Thus waterresources in this watershed will need to be managedmore conscientiously and hopefully with a broader per-spective on the social demand for ecosystem services

When asked about perceived trends in ecosystemservices over the past decade ESBs believed the mostmarked negative trends were in freshwater provision-ing water quality and habitat for species These per-ceptions are likely related to recent severe droughtsand water management decisions when parts of thelower river were allowed to go dry (Allen et al 2013Atkinson et al 2014) Indeed there were 276 no flowdays in the last decade (2003-2012) according to theflow gage at Antlers (USGS 07336200) not far aboveHugo Reservoir In the previous two decades com-bined there were only 75 no flow days (Vaughn et al2015) Many of the recent no flow days could have beenprevented if water had been released from SardisDam and this has been a point of contention amongwatershed residents scientists and the State of Okla-homa We believe the frustration of watershed resi-

dents along with hardships from drought impacts hasgalvanized local communities against what they per-ceive to be a social injustice (Appendix 5) The per-ceived increases in cultural services (particularly localidentity and cultural heritage) we observed (Figure 3)could be explained by how adversity severe droughtand flooding can bring a community together andinstill a sense of pride Egan (2006) documented a simi-lar response to the severe drought in the South-Cen-tral US during the 1930s (ie the dust bowl) Othernatural disasters such as floods and tornadoes havesimilar effects on sociocultural responses Indeed theperceived negative and positive impacts on local iden-tity under no water flow and floods scenarios can beinterpreted with the idea that people perceive the sta-tus quo of local identity Our results support this find-ing in that floods were perceived to increase localidentity and no water flows were perceived to increasecultural heritage (Figure 4) Given that some of therelationships between Figures 3 and 4 are complex(eg local identity has increased over the last decadedespite the perception that no water flows decreaselocal identity) follow-up interviews with more open-ended questions may help explain some of these rela-tionships and allow us to further explore the dynamicsof social demand for ecosystem services

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining sustainable water supplies is a criticalglobal issue In the US there is concern about futurewater supplies not only in the arid southwest (Saboet al 2010) but also in moist temperate areas such asthe southeast because of growing human populationsand increases in drought frequency and magnitudelinked to climate change (Pederson et al 2012) Trade-offs between water security for human needs andecosystem health will only become more challenging inthe future with increasing human demand for freshwa-ter coupled with impending shifts in the duration andfrequency of extreme climatic events and associatedalterations in stream flows This is already being real-ized with increasing interstate water disputes acrossthe nation (Sneddon et al 2002 Boehlert and Jaeger2010 Mandarano and Mason 2013) Thus there is anurgent need to develop models and frameworks thattake into account the interdependent social economicand biophysical dynamics (including costs) of sharedwater resources

This article supports the widely accepted view thatthe knowledge and diverse needs of all stakeholdersincluding local residents and tourists must be consid-ered for the successful incorporation of ecosystem ser-



vices into conservation and management actions Themost straightforward and comprehensive means ofincorporating stakeholder needs in management plansis to conduct surveys in a similar fashion as ourswhere all stakeholder perceptions of the most relevantmanagement scenarios are assessed An example ofthis integration is the European Landscape Conven-tion which promotes the protection management andplanning of European landscapes by promoting publicparticipation in the planning process (Scott 2011)However despite the increasing attention of ecosystemservices as a framework for linking conservation ofnature and human well-being the number of studiesapplying a sociocultural perspective to service prefer-ence assessment is limited Our study demonstratesthe range of data that can be collected and the types ofanalyses that can be performed to incorporate a socio-cultural perspective in service preference assessmentHowever we acknowledge some limitations regardingthe sampling strategy since no randomization proce-dure was used for choosing survey locations This isthe case of respondents sampled in Oklahoma Citywhere (1) location choices were based on conveniencesampling and potentially subject to location selectionbias and (2) population sampled in comparison withpeople interviewed in the watershed (147 respondentsout 700000 vs 226 out of 26000 respectively) canlikely affect our results on Oklahoma City respon-dentsrsquo perception of ecosystem services

In conclusion a sociocultural preference assess-ment of services provided by a watershed withintense water conflict is useful for (1) identifying ser-vices considered to be essential for the maintenanceof human well-being (2) identifying potential conflictsamong different ecosystem services beneficiarygroups (3) characterizing perceived changes inecosystem services and (4) exploring ecosystem ser-vices tradeoffs under different watershed manage-ment scenarios While these goals are usually statedin water plans year after year (eg Oklahoma WaterResources Board 2012) water managers rarely carryout the needed assessments Our study demonstratesthat it is both possible and useful to assess socialdemand of ecosystem services to inform watershedmanagement about stakeholderrsquos perceptions

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional Supporting Information may be foundin the online version of this article a summary ofthe questionnaire used (Appendix 1) material used inthe social sampling (Appendices 2 and 3) variablesused in the identification and characterization of

services beneficiaries (Appendix 4) and an exampleof a billboard found in the case study (Appendix 5)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all of the people in the Kiamichi watershed Okla-homa City and experts at the University of Oklahoma who kindlyresponded to the questionnaire We also thank Tracy Boyer for use-ful comments and Kelsey Bowman Melanie Lawson and JosephSardasti for assisting in field work The Oklahoma Biological Sur-vey and the South Central Climate Science Center at the Univer-sity of Oklahoma (US) provided funding for the development of thisresearch We certify that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) forthe Protection of Human Participants at the University of Okla-homa has approved the IRB protocol with permit number 2733

LITERATURE CITED

Agbenyega O PJ Burgess M Cook and J Morris 2009 Appli-cation of an Ecosystem Function Framework to Perceptions ofCommunity Woodlands Land Use Policy 26551-557

Allen DC HS Galbraith CC Vaughn and E Spooner 2013 ATale of Two Rivers Implications of Water Management Prac-tices for Mussel Biodiversity Outcomes During Droughts Ambio42881-891

Atkinson CL JP Julian and CC Vaughn 2014 Species andFunction Lost Role of Drought in Structuring Stream Commu-nities Biological Conservation 17630-38

Atkinson CL and CC Vaughn 2015 Biogeochemical HotspotsTemporal and Spatial Scaling of Freshwater Mussels on Ecosys-tem Function Freshwater Biology 60563-574

Baron JS NL Poff PL Angermeier CN Dahm PH GleickNG Hairston Jr RB Jackson CA Johnston BG Richterand AD Steinman 2002 Meeting Ecological and SocietalNeeds for Freshwater Ecological Applications 121247-1260DOI 1018901051ndash0761(2002)012(1247MEASNF)20CO2

Barringer F 2011 Indians Join Fight for an Oklahoma LakersquosFlow New York Times April 12 2011 p A1 httpwwwnytimescom20110412scienceearth12waterhtmlpagewanted=allamp_r=0 accessed November 2015

Bateman IJ RT Carson and B Day 2002 Economic Valuationwith Stated Preference Techniques A Manual Edward ElgarCheltenham UK

Bennett EM GD Peterson and E Levitt 2005 Looking to theFuture of Ecosystem Services Introduction to the Special Fea-ture on Scenarios Ecosystems 8125-132

Boehlert BB and WK Jaeger 2010 Past and Future Water Con-flicts in the Upper Klamath Basin An Economic Appraisal WaterResources Research 4610 pp DOI 1010292009WR007925

Brauman KA GC Daily TK Duarte and HA Mooney 2007The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services An OverviewHighlighting Hydrologic Services Annual Review of Environ-ment and Resources 3267-98

Castro AJ M Garcıa-Llorente B Martın-Lopez I Palomo and IIniesta-Arandıa 2013 Multidimensional Approaches in Ecosys-tem Services Assessment In Earth Observation of EcosystemServices D Alcaraz-Segura CM Di Bella and JV Straschnoy(Editors) Taylor amp Francis Group CRC Boca Raton Floridapp 105-124

Castro AJ B Martın-Lopez M Garcıa-Llorente PA AguileraE Lopez and J Cabello 2011 Social Preferences Regardingthe Delivery of Ecosystem Services in a Semiarid MediterraneanRegion Journal of Arid Environments 751201-1208



Chickasaw Nation et al vs Fallin et al 2012 Oklahoma WesternDistrict Court Case CIV-12-275(W)

Covich AP SC Fritz PJ Lamb RD Marzolf WJ MatthewsKA Poiani EE Prepas MB Richman and TC Winter 1997Potential Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Ecosystems ofthe Great Plains of North America Hydrological Processes11993-1021

Egan T 2006 The Worst Hard Time The Untold Story of ThoseWho Survived the Great American Dust Bowl Houghton MifflinHarcourt Boston New York

Galbraith HS DE Spooner and CC Vaughn 2008 Status ofRare and Endangered Freshwater Mussels in SoutheasternOklahoma Rivers Southwestern Naturalist 5345-50

Galbraith HS DE Spooner and CC Vaughn 2010 SynergisticEffects of Regional Climate Patterns and Local Water Manage-ment on Freshwater Mussel Communities Biological Conserva-tion 1431175-1183

Garcıa-Llorente M B Martın-Lopez JA Gonzalez P Alcorloand C Montes 2008 Social Perceptions of the Impacts andBenefits of Invasive Alien Species Implications for Manage-ment Biological Conservation 1412969-2983

Garcıa-Llorente M B Martın-Lopez PALD Nunes JAGonzalez P Alcorlo and C Montes 2011 Analyzing the SocialFactors That Influence Willingness to Pay for the Management ofInvasive Alien Species Under Two Different Strategies Eradica-tion and Prevention Environmental Management 48418-435

Gordon L CM Finlayson and M Falkenmark 2010 ManagingWater in Agriculture for Food Production and Other EcosystemServices Agricultural Water Management 97512-519

Guo Z X Xiao and D Li 2000 An Assessment of Ecosystem Ser-vices Water Flow Regulation and Hydroelectric Power Produc-tion Ecological Applications 10925-936

Harrison PA 2010 Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Conser-vation An Introduction to the RUBICODE Project BiodiversityConservation 192767-2772

Hein L K van Koppen RS de Groot and EC van Ierland2006 Spatial Scales Stakeholders and the Valuation of Ecosys-tem Services Ecological Economics 57209-228

Hennessy-Fiske M 2011 Tribes Small-Town Residents FearOklahoma City Will Drain Their Lake Los Angeles TimesNovember 13 2011 httparticleslatimescom2011nov13nationla-na-oklahoma-lake-20111113 accessed November 2015

Kelemen E M Garcıa-Llorente G Pataki B Martın-Lopez andE Gomez-Baggethun 2014 Non-Monetary Techniques for theValuation of Ecosystem Service In M Potschin and K Jax(Editors) OpenNESS Reference Book EC FP7 Grant Agreementno 308428 wwwopenness projecteulibraryreference-book

Mandarano LA and RJ Mason 2013 Adaptive Management andGovernance of Delaware River Water Resources Water Policy15364-385

Martın-Lopez B E Gomez-Baggethun M Garcıa-Llorente and CMontes 2013 Trade-Offs across Value-Domains in EcosystemServices Assessment Ecological Indicators 37220-228

Martın-Lopez B I Iniesta-Arandia M Garcıa-Llorente I PalomoI Casado-Arzuaga D Garcıa Del Amo E Gomez-Baggethun EOteros-Rozas I Palacios-Agundez B Willaarts JA GonzalezF Santos-Martın M Onaindia C Lopez-Santiago and CMontes 2012 Uncovering Ecosystem Services Bundles throughSocial Preferences PLoS ONE 71-11e38970 DOI 101371jour-nalpone0038970

Matthews WJ CC Vaughn KB Gido and E Marsh-Matthews2005 Southern Plains Rivers In Rivers of North America ACBenke and CE Cushing (Editors) Elsevier Inc Amsterdampp 283-325

Matthews WJ and EG Zimmerman 1990 Potential Effects ofGlobal Warming on Native Fishes of the Southern Great-Plainsand the Southwest Fisheries 1526-32

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2005 Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being The Assessment Series (Four Volumes andSummary) Island Press Washington DC

Mellilo J T Richmond G Yohe and Eds 2014 Climate ChangeImpacts in the United States The Third National ClimateAssessment US Global Change Research Program 841 pphttpdxdoiorg107930J0Z31WJ2

Morton L and S Padgitt 2005 Selecting Socio-Economic Metricsfor Watershed Management Environmental Monitoring andAssessment 10383-98

Mulholland PJ GR Best CC Coutant GM Hornberger JLMeyer PJ Robinson JR Stenberg RE Turner F Vera Her-rera and RG Wetzel 1997 Effects of Climate Change onFreshwater Ecosystems of the South-Eastern United States andthe Gulf Coast of Mexico Hydrological Processes 11949-970

Oklahoma Water Resources Board vs Choctaw and ChickasawNations of Oklahoma 2012 Oklahoma Supreme Court Case110375

Oteros-Rozas E B Martın-Lopez JA Gonzalez T PlieningerCA Lopez and C Montes 2013 Socio-Cultural Valuation ofEcosystem Services in a Transhumance Social-Ecological Net-work Regional Environmental Change 141269-1289

Paavola J and K Hubacek 2013 Ecosystem Services Gover-nance and Stakeholder Participation An Introduction Ecologyand Society 1842

Paetzold A PH Warren and LL Maltby 2010 A Frameworkfor Assessing Ecological Quality Based on Ecosystem ServicesEcological Complexity 7273-281

Pederson N AR Bell TA Knight C Leland N Malcomb KJAnchukaitis K Tackett J Scheff A Brice B Catron W Blo-zan and J Riddle 2012 A Long-Term Perspective on a ModernDrought in the American Southeast Environmental ResearchLetters 71 014034 DOI 1010881748-932671014034

Quintas-Soriano C AJ Castro M Garcıa-Llorente J Cabelloand H Castro 2014 From Supply to Social Demand A Land-scape-Scale Analysis of the Water Regulation Service Land-scape Ecology 291069-1082

Richter BD JV Baumgartner J Powell and DP Braun 1996A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosys-tems Conservation Biology 101163-1174

Sabo JL T Sinha LC Bowling GHW Schoups WW Wallen-der ME Campana KA Cherkauer PL Fuller WL GrafJW Hopmans JS Kominoski C Taylor SW Trimble RHWebb and EE Wohl 2010 Reclaiming Freshwater Sustainabil-ity in the Cadillac Desert Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America 10721263-21270

Schmitz MF I de Aranzabal P Aguilera AJ Rescia and FDPineda 2003 Relationship between Landscape Typology andSocioeconomic Structure Scenarios of Change in Spanish Cul-tural Landscapes Ecological Modelling 168343-356

Scott A 2011 Beyond the Conventional Meeting the Challengesof Landscape Governance within the European Landscape Con-vention Journal of Environmental Management 922754-2762

Seager R and GA Vecchi 2010 Greenhouse Warming and the21st Century Hydroclimate of Southwestern North AmericaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 10721277-21282

Sneddon C L Harris R Dimitrov and U Ozesmi 2002 Con-tested Waters Conflict Scale and Sustainability in AquaticSocioecological Systems Society and Natural Resources 15663-675

Syrbe RU and U Walz 2012 Spatial Indicators for the Assess-ment of Ecosystem Services Providing Benefiting and Connect-ing Areas and Landscape Metrics Ecological Indicators2180-88

Vaughn CC 2000 Changes in the Mussel Fauna of the Red RiverDrainage 1910 ndash Present In Proceedings of the First Freshwater



Mussel Symposium RA Tankersley DI Warmolts GT Wat-ters BJ Armitage PD Johnson and RS Butler (Editors)Ohio Biological Survey Columbus Ohio pp 225-232

Vaughn CC CL Atkinson and JP Julian 2015 Drought-Induced Changes in Flow Regimes Lead to Long-Term Losses inMussel-Provided Ecosystem Services Ecology and Evolution51291-1305

Vaughn CC and M Pyron 1995 Population Ecology of theEndangered Ouachita Rock Pocketbook Mussel Arkansia wheel-eri (Bivalvia Unionidae) in the Kiamichi River OklahomaAmerican Malacological Bulletin 11145-151

Vermeulen S and I Koziell 2002 Integrating Global and LocalValues A Review of Biodiversity Assessment IIED London

Vitousek PM HA Mooney J Lubchenco and JM Melillo 1997Human Domination of Earthrsquos Ecosystems Science 277494

Ward DA BT Ngairorue A Apollus and H Tjiveze 2000 Per-ceptions and Realities of Land Degradation in Arid Otjimb-ingwe Namibia Journal of Arid Environments 45337-356

Welsh LW J Endter-Wada R Downard and KM Kettenring2013 Developing Adaptive Capacity to Droughts The Rational-ity of Locality Ecology and Society 187

Winkler R 2006 Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services AnIntegrated Dynamic Approach Ecological Economics 5982-93



efits that people obtain from ecosystems through spir-itual enrichment cognitive development reflectionrecreation and esthetic experiences (MEA 2005)The ecosystem service approach is useful for decision-making in conservation actions and natural resourcemanagement (Harrison 2010) because it enablesfocusing on ecosystemsmdashhuman well-being interlink-ages by translating ecosystem properties into humanneeds (Castro et al 2011) Ecosystem service prefer-ence assessment encompasses many specialties rang-ing from biophysical quantifications to socioculturalsurveys to economic assessment While much workhas been done on quantifying biophysical propertiesof ecosystems and their potential economic value rel-atively little attention has been given to societyrsquospreferences and perceptions for ecosystem services(Castro et al 2013)

Stakeholders perceive value demand and priori-tize ecosystem services in different ways which canbe quantified as the social demand for ecosystem ser-vices (Martın-Lopez et al 2013) Analysis of thesocial demand for ecosystem services is a newapproach to link an ecosystemrsquos capacity to provideservices with human needs and desires for those ser-vices (Castro et al 2013 Martın-Lopez et al 2013)and highlights that the value of healthy ecosystemsis dependent not only on ecosystem properties butalso on societal needs (Paetzold et al 2010 Syrbeand Walz 2012 Paavola and Hubacek 2013) Socialdemand for ecosystem services can be explored usingnonmonetary indicators including assessment of peo-plersquos perceptions of the importance of different ser-vices (Martın-Lopez et al 2012)

Watershed management has traditionally maxi-mized the production of one ecosystem service (egenergy or agriculture production) resulting in declinesin other services (eg water quantity and quality) andconflicts between different interest groups (Vermeulenand Koziell 2002 Gordon et al 2010) Including apriori analyses of the tradeoffs among various ecosys-tem services as part of watershed management plan-ning should improve the provision of ecosystemservices for all stakeholders and decrease conflictSuch analyses should include an assessment of socialdemand for services however studies including asociocultural perspective in service assessment acrosswatersheds are rare and the techniques are not as for-malized as for economic assessments (Morton and Pad-gitt 2005 Castro et al 2013 Kelemen et al 2014)

Here we assess the social demand for ecosystemservices in a large watershed with intense conflictover water supplies that potentially provide manyecosystem services for competing stakeholders andcompeting regions We used the Kiamichi Riverwatershed in the south-central United States (US)as a case study to examine how a sociocultural

assessment of ecosystem services across its watershedand future service area (Oklahoma City via inter-basin transfers) could be used to weigh tradeoffsamong water resource uses to inform managers forfuture watershed management and planning As faras we are aware this is the first valuation of water-shed ecosystem services in this region We (1) identi-fied and characterized ecosystem beneficiary (ESB)types according to how they use and perceive ecosys-tem services (2) analyzed the factors underlying per-ceptions and preferences for maintaining services (3)assessed differences in the importance and perceivedtrends for ecosystem services and (4) explored theimpact on ecosystem services arising from differentwatershed management scenarios

METHODS

The Kiamichi River and Water Conflict

The Kiamichi River in southeastern Oklahoma is amajor tributary of the Red River with a drainage areaof 4650 km2 (Figure 1) The watershed is 64 forest18 pasture 11 grasslandshrubland 3 urban and1 wetlands according to the 2006 National LandCover Dataset Open water covers almost 3 of thewatershed with virtually all being Sardis and Hugoreservoirs (detailed below) Urban land use only makesup a fraction of a percent of total land area While mostof the watershed is temperate deciduous forest(primarily oak-hickory) there are several conifer plan-tation forests across the watershed Its steep andrugged terrain has limited major row crop agriculturethere are no nearby major cities or interstates andhuman population density is low (56 peoplekm2)(Matthews et al 2005) This lack of development inthe watershed has left the Kiamichi River with rela-tively pristine water and high aquatic biodiversityincluding 86 fish species and 31 mussel species three ofwhich are federally listed as endangered (Atkinson andVaughn 2015 Vaughn and Pyron 1995 Vaughn 2000Matthews et al 2005 Galbraith et al 2008) Althoughthe river is considered a major water supply for thesouth-central US it is particularly vulnerable todroughts and heat waves because it is shallow with highrates of evapotranspiration (Covich et al 1997 Mulhol-land et al 1997) and because organisms such as fishand mussels cannot migrate northward due to the west-to-east drainage (Matthews and Zimmerman 1990)

The Kiamichi watershed which lies within aNative American jurisdictional area (the ChoctawNation) is at the center of intense regional conflictover water use and governance The Kiamichi River







Texas

Arkan

sas

9785 W3556 N

3356 N9437 W

Sardis Lake

HugoLake













RESULTS
















TABLE

1Description

ofSocio-C

ulturalandEconom

icCharacteristics

ofEcosystem

Services

Ben

eficiaries

(ESBs)

Mea

nvalues

are

follow

edbyastandard

dev

iation

inparentheses

(SD)

Variables

Watersh

ed

Residents

(n=226)

Tourists

(n=50)

Business

Visitors

(n=28)

OklahomaCity

Residents

(n=147)

Experts

(n=54)

Watershed

visitation

Visited

Kiamichi

watershed

before

91

78

64

27

59

Purp

oseof

visit

Livingin

thearea

Camping64fish

ing

33boa

ting18

Workingin

thearea

mdashWorkingin

thearea

How

manyyea

rshave

you

lived

atyou

rcu

rren

tresiden

ce

27(

18)

25(

11)

26(

13)

14(

11)

12(

13)

Environ

men

tal

activity

Belon

gto

anassociation

Social38

Work23

Other

44

Social44

Environ

men

tal45

Work8

Social23

Social33

Environ

men

tal15

Work36

Environ

men

tal7

Environ

men

tal8

Work22

Work17

Social5

Other

45

Other

46

Other

24

Other

14

Sen

seof

place

Localiden

tity

Oklahom

an29

American26

Oklahom

an32

Oklahom

an49

Oklahom

an28

From

you

rcounty

town21

Oklahom

an26

From

you

rcounty

town21

From

you

rcountytow

n16

American11

American15

From

you

rcounty

town12

American14

American10

From

you

rcountytow

n9

Other

34

Other

36

Other

32

Other

26

Other

52

Sociocu

ltural

Agein

yea

rs440

(159)

500

(184)

410

(121)

340

(145)

430

(138)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

43

Fem

ale

54

Fem

ale

22

Fem

ale

37

Fem

ale

52

Male

57

Male

46

Male

78

Male

63

Male

48

Familysize

(adults)

30

(21)

26

(21)

25

(2)

27

(22)

24

(19)

Ethnic

back

ground

White

Caucasian59

White

Caucasian65

White

Caucasian69

White

Caucasian53

White

Caucasian83

NativeAmerican28

NativeAmerican27

NativeAmerican19

NativeAmerican19

Multi-racial6

Multiracial7

Multiracial2

Multiracial8

Black

African-

American10

NativeAmerican4

Black

African-

American3

Other

6

Black

African-

American4

Multi-racial6

Black

African-

American2

Other

3

AsianIn

dian2

Other

6

Other

10

Lev

elof

education

University

56High

school43Primary

school1

University

42High

school56Primary

school2

University

77

Highschool23

University

82

Highschool17

University

100

Econom

icNet

hou

seholdannual

income

$41972

$45400

$44286

$43542

$60200












0 100 200 300 400 500


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation


a) b)






FreshwaterProvision


WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED



































































Texas

Arkan

sas

9785 W3556 N

3356 N9437 W

Sardis Lake

HugoLake













RESULTS
















TABLE

1Description

ofSocio-C

ulturalandEconom

icCharacteristics

ofEcosystem

Services

Ben

eficiaries

(ESBs)

Mea

nvalues

are

follow

edbyastandard

dev

iation

inparentheses

(SD)

Variables

Watersh

ed

Residents

(n=226)

Tourists

(n=50)

Business

Visitors

(n=28)

OklahomaCity

Residents

(n=147)

Experts

(n=54)

Watershed

visitation

Visited

Kiamichi

watershed

before

91

78

64

27

59

Purp

oseof

visit

Livingin

thearea

Camping64fish

ing

33boa

ting18

Workingin

thearea

mdashWorkingin

thearea

How

manyyea

rshave

you

lived

atyou

rcu

rren

tresiden

ce

27(

18)

25(

11)

26(

13)

14(

11)

12(

13)

Environ

men

tal

activity

Belon

gto

anassociation

Social38

Work23

Other

44

Social44

Environ

men

tal45

Work8

Social23

Social33

Environ

men

tal15

Work36

Environ

men

tal7

Environ

men

tal8

Work22

Work17

Social5

Other

45

Other

46

Other

24

Other

14

Sen

seof

place

Localiden

tity

Oklahom

an29

American26

Oklahom

an32

Oklahom

an49

Oklahom

an28

From

you

rcounty

town21

Oklahom

an26

From

you

rcounty

town21

From

you

rcountytow

n16

American11

American15

From

you

rcounty

town12

American14

American10

From

you

rcountytow

n9

Other

34

Other

36

Other

32

Other

26

Other

52

Sociocu

ltural

Agein

yea

rs440

(159)

500

(184)

410

(121)

340

(145)

430

(138)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

43

Fem

ale

54

Fem

ale

22

Fem

ale

37

Fem

ale

52

Male

57

Male

46

Male

78

Male

63

Male

48

Familysize

(adults)

30

(21)

26

(21)

25

(2)

27

(22)

24

(19)

Ethnic

back

ground

White

Caucasian59

White

Caucasian65

White

Caucasian69

White

Caucasian53

White

Caucasian83

NativeAmerican28

NativeAmerican27

NativeAmerican19

NativeAmerican19

Multi-racial6

Multiracial7

Multiracial2

Multiracial8

Black

African-

American10

NativeAmerican4

Black

African-

American3

Other

6

Black

African-

American4

Multi-racial6

Black

African-

American2

Other

3

AsianIn

dian2

Other

6

Other

10

Lev

elof

education

University

56High

school43Primary

school1

University

42High

school56Primary

school2

University

77

Highschool23

University

82

Highschool17

University

100

Econom

icNet

hou

seholdannual

income

$41972

$45400

$44286

$43542

$60200












0 100 200 300 400 500


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation


a) b)






FreshwaterProvision


WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED








































































RESULTS
















TABLE

1Description

ofSocio-C

ulturalandEconom

icCharacteristics

ofEcosystem

Services

Ben

eficiaries

(ESBs)

Mea

nvalues

are

follow

edbyastandard

dev

iation

inparentheses

(SD)

Variables

Watersh

ed

Residents

(n=226)

Tourists

(n=50)

Business

Visitors

(n=28)

OklahomaCity

Residents

(n=147)

Experts

(n=54)

Watershed

visitation

Visited

Kiamichi

watershed

before

91

78

64

27

59

Purp

oseof

visit

Livingin

thearea

Camping64fish

ing

33boa

ting18

Workingin

thearea

mdashWorkingin

thearea

How

manyyea

rshave

you

lived

atyou

rcu

rren

tresiden

ce

27(

18)

25(

11)

26(

13)

14(

11)

12(

13)

Environ

men

tal

activity

Belon

gto

anassociation

Social38

Work23

Other

44

Social44

Environ

men

tal45

Work8

Social23

Social33

Environ

men

tal15

Work36

Environ

men

tal7

Environ

men

tal8

Work22

Work17

Social5

Other

45

Other

46

Other

24

Other

14

Sen

seof

place

Localiden

tity

Oklahom

an29

American26

Oklahom

an32

Oklahom

an49

Oklahom

an28

From

you

rcounty

town21

Oklahom

an26

From

you

rcounty

town21

From

you

rcountytow

n16

American11

American15

From

you

rcounty

town12

American14

American10

From

you

rcountytow

n9

Other

34

Other

36

Other

32

Other

26

Other

52

Sociocu

ltural

Agein

yea

rs440

(159)

500

(184)

410

(121)

340

(145)

430

(138)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

43

Fem

ale

54

Fem

ale

22

Fem

ale

37

Fem

ale

52

Male

57

Male

46

Male

78

Male

63

Male

48

Familysize

(adults)

30

(21)

26

(21)

25

(2)

27

(22)

24

(19)

Ethnic

back

ground

White

Caucasian59

White

Caucasian65

White

Caucasian69

White

Caucasian53

White

Caucasian83

NativeAmerican28

NativeAmerican27

NativeAmerican19

NativeAmerican19

Multi-racial6

Multiracial7

Multiracial2

Multiracial8

Black

African-

American10

NativeAmerican4

Black

African-

American3

Other

6

Black

African-

American4

Multi-racial6

Black

African-

American2

Other

3

AsianIn

dian2

Other

6

Other

10

Lev

elof

education

University

56High

school43Primary

school1

University

42High

school56Primary

school2

University

77

Highschool23

University

82

Highschool17

University

100

Econom

icNet

hou

seholdannual

income

$41972

$45400

$44286

$43542

$60200












0 100 200 300 400 500


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation


a) b)






FreshwaterProvision


WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED










































































TABLE

1Description

ofSocio-C

ulturalandEconom

icCharacteristics

ofEcosystem

Services

Ben

eficiaries

(ESBs)

Mea

nvalues

are

follow

edbyastandard

dev

iation

inparentheses

(SD)

Variables

Watersh

ed

Residents

(n=226)

Tourists

(n=50)

Business

Visitors

(n=28)

OklahomaCity

Residents

(n=147)

Experts

(n=54)

Watershed

visitation

Visited

Kiamichi

watershed

before

91

78

64

27

59

Purp

oseof

visit

Livingin

thearea

Camping64fish

ing

33boa

ting18

Workingin

thearea

mdashWorkingin

thearea

How

manyyea

rshave

you

lived

atyou

rcu

rren

tresiden

ce

27(

18)

25(

11)

26(

13)

14(

11)

12(

13)

Environ

men

tal

activity

Belon

gto

anassociation

Social38

Work23

Other

44

Social44

Environ

men

tal45

Work8

Social23

Social33

Environ

men

tal15

Work36

Environ

men

tal7

Environ

men

tal8

Work22

Work17

Social5

Other

45

Other

46

Other

24

Other

14

Sen

seof

place

Localiden

tity

Oklahom

an29

American26

Oklahom

an32

Oklahom

an49

Oklahom

an28

From

you

rcounty

town21

Oklahom

an26

From

you

rcounty

town21

From

you

rcountytow

n16

American11

American15

From

you

rcounty

town12

American14

American10

From

you

rcountytow

n9

Other

34

Other

36

Other

32

Other

26

Other

52

Sociocu

ltural

Agein

yea

rs440

(159)

500

(184)

410

(121)

340

(145)

430

(138)

Gen

der

Fem

ale

43

Fem

ale

54

Fem

ale

22

Fem

ale

37

Fem

ale

52

Male

57

Male

46

Male

78

Male

63

Male

48

Familysize

(adults)

30

(21)

26

(21)

25

(2)

27

(22)

24

(19)

Ethnic

back

ground

White

Caucasian59

White

Caucasian65

White

Caucasian69

White

Caucasian53

White

Caucasian83

NativeAmerican28

NativeAmerican27

NativeAmerican19

NativeAmerican19

Multi-racial6

Multiracial7

Multiracial2

Multiracial8

Black

African-

American10

NativeAmerican4

Black

African-

American3

Other

6

Black

African-

American4

Multi-racial6

Black

African-

American2

Other

3

AsianIn

dian2

Other

6

Other

10

Lev

elof

education

University

56High

school43Primary

school1

University

42High

school56Primary

school2

University

77

Highschool23

University

82

Highschool17

University

100

Econom

icNet

hou

seholdannual

income

$41972

$45400

$44286

$43542

$60200












0 100 200 300 400 500


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation


a) b)






FreshwaterProvision


WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED








































































0 100 200 300 400 500


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation

Important

0 1 2 3 4


Habitat for species

Air quality

Water regulation

Water quality

Cultural heritage

Local identity

Recreation


a) b)






FreshwaterProvision


WaterRegulation

WaterQuality

CulturalHeritage








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED

































































0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local Identity

Cultural heritage

Air quality

Water regulation

Recreation

Water quality


Habitat for spceies


(276)

(161)

(200)

(231)

(164)

(113)

(110)

(72)

Population ()


(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)





DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED































































DISCUSSION












CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED



































































CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED




































































ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LITERATURE CITED































































SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND … · SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND...

Documents

Transcript of SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND … · SOCIAL DEMAND FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND...