Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Ecosystem services in sustainable groundwater management Jaap Tuinstra ⁎, Joke van Wensem Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB), P.O. Box 30947, 2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands
H I G H L I G H T S • • • • •
Ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management. Ecosystem services concept can contribute to sustainable decisions in groundwater management. Overview of groundwater related ecosystem services is presented. Key elements for sustainable groundwater management are derived and related to the ecosystem services concept. Sustainability of groundwater management solutions will increase when more of the key elements of sustainable groundwater management, as defined in this article, are fully used and the guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 July 2013 Received in revised form 21 March 2014 Accepted 21 March 2014 Available online 13 April 2014 Editor: D. Barcelo Keywords: Ecosystem services Groundwater Natural resources Stakeholder Management Protection
a b s t r a c t The ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management in Europe and, for instance, The Netherlands. With respect to groundwater management there is a challenge to incorporate this concept in such a way that it contributes to the sustainability of decisions. Groundwater is of vital importance to societies, which is reflected in the presented overview of groundwater related ecosystem services. Classifications of these services vary depending on the purpose of the listing (valuation, protection, mapping et cetera). Though the scientific basis is developing, the knowledge-availability still can be a critical factor in decision making based upon ecosystem services. The examples in this article illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. The ecosystem services concept contributes to this awareness and enhances the visibility of the groundwater functions in the decision making process. The success of the ecosystem services concept and its contribution to sustainable groundwater management will, however, largely depend on other aspects than the concept itself. Local and actual circumstances, policy ambitions and knowledge availability will play an important role. Solutions can be considered more sustainable when more of the key elements for sustainable groundwater management, as defined in this article, are fully used and the presented guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Groundwater is a vulnerable natural resource under increasing pressure. The pressures result from intensive use of the soil and subsoil, such as agriculture, storage of thermal energy in closed and open systems, extraction of groundwater and the use of subsoil space for infrastructure. These pressures may lead to scarcity, unwanted fluctuations in water levels, chemical contamination, nutrient loading, drought and salinization. In the past, policies for groundwater protection in The Netherlands have been targeted at different threats separately, and disconnected
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 6 52740042, +31 6 27276553. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Tuinstra), [email protected] (J. van Wensem).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.098 0048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
from for instance surface water policies. Lately, it has been recognized that groundwater and surface water, both in qualitative and quantitative aspects, relate to each other, for example when surface water surplus is infiltrated in groundwater or when groundwater is feeding surface waters. A need has been identified for a more integrated policy approach toward groundwater protection, taking into account the different threats, qualitative and quantitative aspects, in connection with other environmental compartments. The ecosystem services concept might be the key for connecting these different aspects of groundwater protection and management. This is one of the conclusions of a scientific recommendation on groundwater ambitions, prepared by the Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB, 2012a) for the Dutch government. This paper discusses the use of the ecosystem services concept for sustainable groundwater management, with a focus on the regional or landscape scale and is an elaboration of the recommendation.
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
2. The ecosystem services concept in decision making Ecosystem services have been defined as the benefits of ecosystems for human well-being (Hassan et al., 2005). The services are generally categorized in: provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel), regulatory services (e.g. climate regulation, water purification), cultural services (e.g. education, recreation) and supporting services (e.g. water cycling, soil formation). The ecosystem services concept might be used in decision making (policy, spatial planning, management), with the intention to protect and enhance natural resources and thus to maintain healthy ecosystems and biodiversity. The TCB has analyzed the potential use of the ecosystem services concept for environmental decision making in The Netherlands and concluded that the concept has potential to achieve more sustainable use of ecosystems, especially in the Dutch context, characterized by strong competition for space, and consequently the need for multipurpose land use (TCB, 2012b). For human well-being all ecosystem services are needed, though not all services can be provided at the same time and at the same place. There is spatial and temporal variation. This can be the result of properties of the subsoil that do not support a certain ecosystem service. In addition, users optimize certain uses, for example to extract water, and this may be to the detriment of other services at the location (Van Wensem et al., 2013). Choices have to be made in decision making processes, in which besides environmental, also economical and social aspects are considered (Daily et al., 2009). Sustainable management of ecosystem services needs the balancing of the combined investments and interests of stakeholders at a specific place. Knowledge of the ecosystem processes and increased awareness of the importance of these processes are important prerequisites for such decision making (Otte et al., 2012). Supporting tools for the decision making process at, for instance, landscape scale are available. A six step approach was proposed (see Box 1). Experience with applying the ecosystem services approaches has increased in recent years, for instance in the context of the project The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2012). Awareness of the available natural capital is increasing due to national inventories initiated by the European Union (EU, 2013). High relevance is attributed to the ecosystem services framework for developed countries where it is expected to become one of the leading influences in environmental policy in the coming years (Matzdorf and Meyer, 2014). An inventory of the use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in The Netherlands has indicated that the concept seems to be gaining foothold. In several projects the approach is not only seen as valuable for better decisions with respect to sustainable land management, but also to attract more funding for the plans due to the involvement of broader stakeholder groups (Van Wensem, 2013).
Box 1 Basics for the ecosystem services (ES) concept decision making process. The basics for the decision making process with the ES concept are for instance described by six steps distinguished in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB, 2012) for decision making by local and regional authorities: Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem (including stakeholder inventory). Step 2: Identify which ES are relevant to the decision. Step 3: Define the information needs and select appropriate methods. Step 4: Assess the changes that are expected in the flow of ES. Step 5: Identify and assess policy options. Step 6: Assess distributional impacts of policy options.
799
Box 2 Overview of ecosystem services related to groundwater (not exhaustive) (based on Stuurman and Griffioen, 2003, with additions and regrouping). Providing services: – – – – – –
Drinking water Water for food and beverage industry Water supply for agricultural activities, such as irrigation Strategic groundwater resources Process water for industry Cooling water for industry
Regulating services: – – – – – – – –
Groundwater as a storage medium for heat or coolness Groundwater as a supplier of coolness and warmth Maintain groundwater level and prevent subsidence Maintain groundwater level and stability of civil engineering constructions Water retention, drainage (water buffering) Water supply in groundwater dependent surface water regimes Water supply in groundwater dependent seepage areas Purifying and filtering effect of groundwater and soil
Cultural services – Preservation of cultural–historical and archeological values – Esthetical and ethical values of the groundwater ecosystem Supporting services: – Groundwater functions and processes (indirectly) related to ecosystem services – Role of groundwater in the biogeochemical cycles
Before considering the meaning of the ecosystem services concept for sustainable groundwater management, a closer look is needed on groundwater related ecosystem services, the meaning of groundwater management and the adjective ‘sustainable’. These subjects are addressed in the following paragraphs. 3. Groundwater related ecosystem services The groundwater ecosystem (the ecosystem of the water-saturated soil) provides essential ecosystem services. European Union residents depend for 75% of their water supply on groundwater (EC, 2008). Groundwater is extracted for human consumption like drinking water, use in processing of food and breweries, storage and supply of coolness and warmth, water buffering and moisture supply for crops. Groundwater is of vital importance to groundwater dependent ecosystems, like wetlands, and their ecosystem services (Kløve et al., 2011). Classifications of groundwater related ecosystem services are presented by Stuurman and Griffioen (2003), and Landers and Nahlik (2013). Box 2 presents a compilation of groundwater related services, ordered in the four classes of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Hassan et al., 2005). This compilation is mainly useful in the context of communication and awareness raising. It can function as an eye-opener for the appreciation of the value and potential uses of groundwater. Depending on the intended use of the classification, the listing can be shorter or more detailed and the descriptions of the services can vary. CICES lists of ecosystem services (Haynes-Young and Potschin,
800
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
Box 3 Examples of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) related to groundwater (source: Landers and Nahlik, 2013). Beneficiary categories and sub-categories
FEGS (category)
Importance of FEGS to the Beneficiary
Municipal drinking water plant operators
Water
Residential property owners
Presence of the environment
Experiencers and viewers
Presence of the environment Viewscapes Sounds and scents
Water suitable for processing by a municipal drinking water plant Opportunity for placement of infrastructure and reduced/increased risk of subsidence and sinkholes on the property Opportunity to view the environment and organisms within it, and groundwater phenomena Landscape that provides a sensory experience Sounds and scents that provide a sensory experience
2013) are used for mapping purposes and descriptions need to be easily translated to spatial entities. The EPA listing of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS; Landers and Nahlik, 2013) is very useful for stakeholder identification and payment agreements, because the FEGS are directly related to the importance for the beneficiary, or direct user of the good or service. An example of the latter is presented in Box 3. In the EPA classification method only final ecosystem goods and services are identified. These are “components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being”. The classification excludes the so-called intermediate services, which are “ecological processes, functions, structures, characteristics, and interactions that are essential to the existence of final ecosystem goods and services but are not directly enjoyed, used, or consumed by beneficiaries” (Landers and Nahlik, 2013). The supporting and part of the regulating services presented in Box 2 belong to this group of intermediate services. CICES makes a similar choice by excluding supporting services, but includes some of the regulating services that are excluded in the EPA classification (HaynesYoung and Potschin, 2013). The rationale behind these fine-tunings of the classifications is to avoid double counting when valuation of ecosystem services is involved. The processes and functions involved in intermediate services are indirectly included in the value of the final goods and services and a separate valuation would be a double counting. However, other purposes for classifications than valuation may justify the explicit mentioning of intermediate services. As stated before, it can be worthwhile to mention them in communicating the broad spectrum of groundwater services. Furthermore, intermediate services need to be protected in order to benefit from the FEGS on the long term. Groundwater protection directed to FEGS delivered to beneficiaries only might be insufficient to ensure this long term delivery of ecosystem services. Therefore, in a classification system directed to groundwater protection the explicit mentioning of intermediate services is recommendable. 4. Sustainable groundwater management Groundwater management refers to the activities of involved parties to maintain and improve quantitative and qualitative properties of groundwater. Management is performed at specific scales, e.g. local, regional, national and trans-boundary. The reasons for the need of groundwater management might be manifold, including the prevention of and counteracting on threats like drought, flooding and poor drinking water quality. A need for management can also exist when different kinds of uses of the groundwater occur in the same area, like agriculture, drinking water extraction and nature (Van den Brink et al., 2008). Groundwater management, than, can facilitate the combined use of groundwater. Groundwater is referred to as a critical natural capital with a high value for livelihoods, economies and societies (Bergkamp
and Cross, 2006), which underlines the importance of a responsible management. However, public awareness of the value of groundwater is often poor. The groundwater is literally ‘out of sight’ in, for instance, spatial planning decisions (Kløve et al., 2011; Lerner and Harris, 2009; Bergkamp and Cross, 2006). The absence of an ‘owner’ of the groundwater can contribute to this poor visibility. Thus groundwater management needs awareness raising and recognition of responsible stakeholders. The societal importance of groundwater management is reflected by conflicts, from local to international scale, that arise when sustainable management is difficult to achieve (Amery and Wolf, 2004). The adjective ‘sustainable’ has been described in many different ways (Llamas et al., 2006) but a generally accepted over-arching description is that it refers to an approach which aims to satisfy current needs without compromising the needs of future generations (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). To operationalize this description, the triple P concept (people, planet, prosperity; United Nations, 2002) is often used. This means that sustainability (at least) comprises societal, natural (environmental) and economic aspects. However, to be of practical use in groundwater management, a further translation of these over-arching descriptions is needed. There is no objective measure for sustainability. Approaches at different scale levels intend to contribute to it. An example at high scale level is the EU Water Framework Directive (and the daughter Groundwater Directive), which intends to support at European level the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater “as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use” (EC, 2000). The further work-out of this framework is at the level of river basins and groundwater bodies within these. Many groundwater management decisions relate to lower scale level, within the scale of groundwater systems and the landscape scale. Historically, important elements in sustainable groundwater management include a balance between groundwater use and recharge and pollution prevention (Kløve et al., 2011; Lerner and Harris, 2009; EC, 2000). Thus, sustainable groundwater management is closely related to surface water management and land use (Lerner and Harris, 2009). Based upon the above reflection on management and sustainability, we distinguish some key elements for sustainable groundwater management: – Societal, natural (environmental) and economic aspects are considered together. – Awareness of the value of the natural capital and its potential uses and threats is a pre-condition (for decision makers, public). – Stakeholder involvement and ownership are important. – The adequate scale levels should be addressed. – The management has a long term scope. – Quantity and quality aspects are both considered. – Prevention prevails over treatment (in case of pollution and other stressors).
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
5. Does the ecosystem services concept contribute to sustainable groundwater management? Practical experience with the ecosystem services concept in groundwater management is still scarce. Therefore, this chapter discusses the potential contribution of the concept. A general observation is that the key elements of a sustainable groundwater management as derived in the previous paragraph are, more or less, all included in the ecosystem services concept. This suggests a logical fit of the concept in sustainable groundwater management. Another observation, at least in The Netherlands, is that decision making at landscape scale, whether or not groundwater issues are involved, is often according to the process steps of TEEB (Box 1). The increase in stakeholder involvement in decision making is referred to as ‘the energetic society’ and is seen as a driver of sustainable development (Hajer, 2011). Both the growing experience with stakeholder participation and the focus on the landscape scale attribute to the logical fit of the ecosystem services concept. However, the success of the concept and its contribution to sustainable groundwater management will largely depend on other aspects than the concept itself. Local and actual circumstances, policy ambitions and knowledge availability will play an important role. Therefore we will discuss the sustainability aspect by introducing some examples of the ecosystem services concept in practice. Example 1. New York drinking water supply 90% of New York's drinking water originates from large watersheds north of the city, mainly surface water. Due to diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, high investments were foreseen in the 1980s for additional filtration of the water. Negotiation and dialog between the municipality and farmer communities resulted in an agreement in 1993 in which farmers should reduce their footprint (mainly due to fertilization practices with animal manure) on the environment, getting in return support and less regulation. Due to the success of the program the high investment costs could be avoided due to a balancing of ecosystem services for agriculture and drinking water (Appleton, 2002). In this example, awareness and stakeholder negotiations play an important role. All the key elements of a sustainable approach, as derived in the chapter above, seem to be included. Whether the solution is long term sustainable depends largely on the balance between the trade-offs of water protection and the economic vitality of the communities in the area (Smith and Porter, 2010). Example 2. Land use and drinking water abstraction in Holten (The Netherlands). In the area around the little village of Holten in the east of The Netherlands groundwater conflicts arose between agricultural land use and groundwater abstraction for drinking water. The agricultural land use impacted the groundwater quality (mainly nitrate) in an area with vulnerable groundwater resources. A negotiation support system was set up in cooperation with stakeholders in the area. Groundwater transport modeling was used to show the impact of land use scenarios on the infiltrating and abstracted groundwater. Land uses included agriculture, nature (forested areas), recreation and urban areas. The shared information due to the negotiation support system helped all stakeholders to accept necessary changes in land use (Van den Brink et al., 2008). Like the New York example, this case refers to balancing the ecosystem service of providing clean water for drinking water with agricultural and other land use. It shows the importance of shared information in the stakeholder negotiation process and the importance of visualization of the conflicting interests.
801
Example 3. Kumamoto payment for groundwater recharge (Japan) 80% of the drinking water in the Japanese city of Kumamoto is groundwater originating from the surrounding area. Rice paddies account for one third of the recharge capacity in the area. In recent years the groundwater level has been lowered as a result of reduced rice production and urbanization in and around Kumamoto City. The semiconductor industry extracts significant amounts of groundwater. Cooperation between industry, a local NGO, a local agricultural cooperative and the local municipality resulted in a payment for farmers for groundwater recharge. Volunteering local farmers were paid by the industry to flood abandoned and non-abandoned rice fields with water from a nearby river, resulting in recharge of the amount of groundwater extracted by the local industry (Nishimiya, 2010). The example is a case study in the TEEB project. It illustrates a ‘business case’ between the stakeholders mentioned. The sustainability of this solution is difficult to judge, for example because information on water quality and quantity aspects and the social context is scarce. Example 4. Ughelen water chain solution (The Netherlands) In the past, a paper factory extracted large quantities of groundwater (8 million l per year) resulting in a lowering of the groundwater level of about 4 m in the urbanized vicinity. Once the factory closed, water quantity problems arose in the residential area. As a solution, the municipality took responsibility for the complete water chain. Groundwater was extracted to such an extent that problems for the residential area were avoided. Furthermore, the groundwater was used as a source for heating and cooling of buildings. It was supplied to several companies for their processing on the condition of purification before it was discharged in a small stream that was previously dried out and now restored with a sufficient water bearing capacity. The water from the stream is partly extracted by a drinking water company (IenM, 2012). This example illustrates the meaning of ownership. In this case the municipality took the responsibility for the groundwater chain. Optimal use was made of the groundwater ecosystem services. The approach has positive results considering people, planet and prosperity. It takes into account the scale of the local groundwater system. Whether the approach is sustainable on the long term depends mainly on the ambitions of the involved stakeholders (municipality, residents, companies) and the sustained ownership of the municipality. The examples illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. An additional question that remains is whether the solutions are sustainable on the long term. For several reasons, this long term scope is of vital importance, especially for groundwater. 6. The ecosystem services concept and long term groundwater management The groundwater ecosystem is in general a slowly changing system. The age of the groundwater, which is the period of aging of the water after infiltration as surface- or rain water, can vary between tens and thousands of years, depending on the hydrological system. Groundwater layers in the ‘Grote Slenk’ in The Netherlands, for instance, contain groundwater which is tens of thousands years old (Stuurman and Griffioen, 2003). Due tot the generally large volumes of groundwater in aquifers the potential adverse effects of intensive groundwater use generally take one or two generations to become apparent (Llamas et al., 2006). Long term sustainable use of ecosystem services is supported by some basic guidelines for the application of the ecosystem services concept (TCB, 2003; modified from EFSA, 2010): 1. Prevent exhaustion of natural resources by over-exploitation (see for instance the groundwater extraction in Example 3).
802
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
2. Prevent side effects on other than the optimized ecosystem services and on surrounding ecosystems. For instance, agricultural areas, with optimized food production, can have a significant impact on groundwater quality and quantity, the latter due to intensive use of groundwater to water the crops. As a result, surrounding groundwater depending ecosystems can suffer from drought effects due to lower groundwater levels. According to Kløve et al., 2011, the interdependencies between ecosystem services of groundwater dependent ecosystems and groundwater are poorly understood and often not recognized in decision making and management of water resources. 3. Keep the recovery capacity of the services intact: the services temporarily less available or absent, possibly for a protracted period, must be able to return. This is illustrated by the subsidence problem of the Dutch peat areas. Historical agricultural land use in Dutch peat areas, including artificial lowering of the groundwater level, results in irreversible loss of the peat due to decomposition and in compaction of the soils. The process of land subsidence leads to elevated risks of flooding and increasing upward seepage of brackish and nutrient rich ground water (Hoogland et al., 2012). If the process continues, the peat areas will be lost. 4. Give each ecosystem service the requisite space. Spatial planning can contribute to the protection of natural resources. With respect to groundwater, the hydrological system within (or exceeding outside) a landscape is an important factor for the relevant scale for decision making (Griffioen et al., 2003). It might be necessary, based upon the vulnerability of the groundwater, to define areas with restrictions toward the land use for the maintenance of a groundwater ecosystem service on the long term, for instance for drinking water purposes (Lerner and Harris, 2009). 7. Discussion and conclusion The ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management. With respect to groundwater management there is a challenge to incorporate this concept in such a way that it contributes to the sustainability of decisions. The available classifications and listings of groundwater related ecosystem services can be of practical help, whereby the purpose of the listing (valuation, protection, mapping etc.) determines in part the listed services. Especially the supporting or intermediate services are of vital importance in the context of groundwater protection and difficult to address in classification systems for valuation and mapping of ecosystem services. It is recognized that the key elements of sustainable groundwater management are more or less all included in the ecosystem services concept. Knowledge is a vital factor. Daily et al. (2009) conclude that the state of knowledge and the development of policy and finance mechanisms for incorporating natural capital into resource- and land-use decisions are considered to be insufficient to apply the ecosystem services concept at large scale. However, the ecosystem services concept at least may provide transparency on what is known and unknown. As shown in the “Holten example” in this paper (Example 2), shared information and visualization of conflicting and shared interests is needed to reach socially embedded solutions. The information needs, include for instance the characterization of the natural resources, the amounts, the ‘value’ that can be attributed to them et cetera. The type of groundwater system and the amount of groundwater available to deliver services like ‘coolness’ or drinking water should be quantified as much as possible, to provide the necessary information for decision making. This includes not only monetary valuation, but also the value for society in a wider context. Though the scientific basis is developing (TCB, 2012b), the knowledge-availability still can be a critical factor in decision making based upon ecosystem services. The value of the concept is that, in the inventory and starting phase of decision making, a broad spectrum of ecosystem services can be
considered, including the groundwater related and groundwater unrelated services in the area of concern. This integral approach fits with sustainable groundwater management, that needs to connect groundwater with surface water and land use. Whether the application of the ecosystem services concept in groundwater management will result in sustainable decision making will depend significantly on the ambition of the involved parties and available knowledge. The examples in this article illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. However, it is not shown that the decisions are sustainable for the long term. Sustainability will increase when more of the identified key elements for sustainable groundwater management are fully used and the guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected. References Amery HA, Wolf AT. Water in the Middle East: a geography of peace. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press; 2004. Appleton AF. How New York City used an ecosystem services strategy carried out through an urban–rural partnership to preserve the pristine quality of its drinking water and save billions of dollars. A paper for Forest Trends — Tokyo; 2002. Bergkamp G, Cross K. Groundwater and ecosystem services: towards their sustainable use. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability (ISGWAS), Alicante, Spain, 24–27 January 2006; 2006. p. 177–93. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kaveira PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7. 21-18. EC European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy; 2000. EC European Commission. Groundwater protection in Europe; 2008. EFSA European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. EFSA J 2010;8(10):1821. EU European Union. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Discussion paper — final 978-92-79-29369-6; 2013. Griffioen J, Notenboom J, Schraa G, Stuurman RJ, Runhaar H, Van Wirdum G. System oriented groundwater management. Groningen/Houten, The Netherlands: Wolters Noordhoff; 2003 [In Dutch]. Hajer M. The energetic society. In search of a governance philosophy for a clean economy. Report No. 500070012. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; 2011. [In Dutch]. Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press; 2005. Haynes-Young R, Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August–December 2012. Report to the European Environment Agency. EEA framework contract number EEA/IEA/09/ 003; 2013. Hoogland T, Van den Akker JJH, Brus DJ. Modeling the subsidence of peat soils in the Dutch coastal area. Geoderma 2012;171–172:92–7. IenM Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. The triple-O approach. Ecosystem services in the practice of sustainable land management and regional development. (in Dutch). Available from: http://www.rwsleefomgeving.nl/onderwerpen/bodemondergrond/bodembeleid/publicaties/triple-aanpak/, 2012. Kløve B, Allan A, Bertrand G, Druzynska E, Erturk A, Goldscheider N, et al. Groundwater dependent ecosystems. Part II. Ecosystem services and management in Europe under risk of climate change and land use intensification. Environ Sci Pol 2011;14: 782–93. Landers DH, Nahlik AM. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGSCS). EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report number EPA/600/R13/ORD-004914; 2013. Lerner DN, Harris B. The relationship between land use and groundwater resources and quality. Land Use Policy 2009;26S:S265–73. Llamas MR, Martinez-Santos P, de la Hera A. National Ground Water Association Press, Ohio, USA. ISBN 1-56034-131-9, pp 105–116. 2006. Matzdorf B, Meyer C. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 2014;38:509–21. Nishimiya H. Payments for ground water recharge, Japan; 2010 [Available at: TEEBweb.org]. Otte P, Maring L, De Cleen M, Boekhold S. Transition in soil policy and associated knowledge development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012;4:565–72. Smith LED, Porter KS. Management of catchments for the protection of water resources: drawing on the New York City watershed experience. Reg Environ Change 2010; 10:311–26. Stuurman RJ, Griffioen J. System based groundwater management. Three cases with groundwater management problems. Commissioned by TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. TCB Report 18; 2003. [In Dutch]. TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Towards a more ecologically sustainable land use. Report number A33. The Hague, the Netherlands; 2003.
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803 TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Advice groundwater. Report number A074. The Hague, The Netherlands: TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee; 2012a. [In Dutch]. TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Advice better decisions with ecosystem services. Report number A073. The Hague, The Netherlands: TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee; 2012b. [in Dutch]. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management. In: Wittmer H, Gundimeda H, editors. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2012. [384 pp. Also see: http://www.teebweb.org]. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
803
United NationsReport of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South-Africa, 26 August–4 September; 2002. [New York]. Van den Brink C, et al. Using a groundwater quality negotiation support system to change land use management near drinking-water abstraction in The Netherlands. J Hydrol 2008;350:339–56. Van Wensem J. Use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in The Netherlands. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9(nr 2):237–42. Van Wensem J, et al. Tools and concepts for sustainable management of the subsurface in the Netherlands: a technical investigation. Barcelona: AquaConSoil proceedings; 2013.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Ecosystem services in sustainable groundwater management Jaap Tuinstra ⁎, Joke van Wensem Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB), P.O. Box 30947, 2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands
H I G H L I G H T S • • • • •
Ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management. Ecosystem services concept can contribute to sustainable decisions in groundwater management. Overview of groundwater related ecosystem services is presented. Key elements for sustainable groundwater management are derived and related to the ecosystem services concept. Sustainability of groundwater management solutions will increase when more of the key elements of sustainable groundwater management, as defined in this article, are fully used and the guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 July 2013 Received in revised form 21 March 2014 Accepted 21 March 2014 Available online 13 April 2014 Editor: D. Barcelo Keywords: Ecosystem services Groundwater Natural resources Stakeholder Management Protection
a b s t r a c t The ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management in Europe and, for instance, The Netherlands. With respect to groundwater management there is a challenge to incorporate this concept in such a way that it contributes to the sustainability of decisions. Groundwater is of vital importance to societies, which is reflected in the presented overview of groundwater related ecosystem services. Classifications of these services vary depending on the purpose of the listing (valuation, protection, mapping et cetera). Though the scientific basis is developing, the knowledge-availability still can be a critical factor in decision making based upon ecosystem services. The examples in this article illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. The ecosystem services concept contributes to this awareness and enhances the visibility of the groundwater functions in the decision making process. The success of the ecosystem services concept and its contribution to sustainable groundwater management will, however, largely depend on other aspects than the concept itself. Local and actual circumstances, policy ambitions and knowledge availability will play an important role. Solutions can be considered more sustainable when more of the key elements for sustainable groundwater management, as defined in this article, are fully used and the presented guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Groundwater is a vulnerable natural resource under increasing pressure. The pressures result from intensive use of the soil and subsoil, such as agriculture, storage of thermal energy in closed and open systems, extraction of groundwater and the use of subsoil space for infrastructure. These pressures may lead to scarcity, unwanted fluctuations in water levels, chemical contamination, nutrient loading, drought and salinization. In the past, policies for groundwater protection in The Netherlands have been targeted at different threats separately, and disconnected
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 6 52740042, +31 6 27276553. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Tuinstra), [email protected] (J. van Wensem).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.098 0048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
from for instance surface water policies. Lately, it has been recognized that groundwater and surface water, both in qualitative and quantitative aspects, relate to each other, for example when surface water surplus is infiltrated in groundwater or when groundwater is feeding surface waters. A need has been identified for a more integrated policy approach toward groundwater protection, taking into account the different threats, qualitative and quantitative aspects, in connection with other environmental compartments. The ecosystem services concept might be the key for connecting these different aspects of groundwater protection and management. This is one of the conclusions of a scientific recommendation on groundwater ambitions, prepared by the Soil Protection Technical Committee (TCB, 2012a) for the Dutch government. This paper discusses the use of the ecosystem services concept for sustainable groundwater management, with a focus on the regional or landscape scale and is an elaboration of the recommendation.
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
2. The ecosystem services concept in decision making Ecosystem services have been defined as the benefits of ecosystems for human well-being (Hassan et al., 2005). The services are generally categorized in: provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel), regulatory services (e.g. climate regulation, water purification), cultural services (e.g. education, recreation) and supporting services (e.g. water cycling, soil formation). The ecosystem services concept might be used in decision making (policy, spatial planning, management), with the intention to protect and enhance natural resources and thus to maintain healthy ecosystems and biodiversity. The TCB has analyzed the potential use of the ecosystem services concept for environmental decision making in The Netherlands and concluded that the concept has potential to achieve more sustainable use of ecosystems, especially in the Dutch context, characterized by strong competition for space, and consequently the need for multipurpose land use (TCB, 2012b). For human well-being all ecosystem services are needed, though not all services can be provided at the same time and at the same place. There is spatial and temporal variation. This can be the result of properties of the subsoil that do not support a certain ecosystem service. In addition, users optimize certain uses, for example to extract water, and this may be to the detriment of other services at the location (Van Wensem et al., 2013). Choices have to be made in decision making processes, in which besides environmental, also economical and social aspects are considered (Daily et al., 2009). Sustainable management of ecosystem services needs the balancing of the combined investments and interests of stakeholders at a specific place. Knowledge of the ecosystem processes and increased awareness of the importance of these processes are important prerequisites for such decision making (Otte et al., 2012). Supporting tools for the decision making process at, for instance, landscape scale are available. A six step approach was proposed (see Box 1). Experience with applying the ecosystem services approaches has increased in recent years, for instance in the context of the project The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2012). Awareness of the available natural capital is increasing due to national inventories initiated by the European Union (EU, 2013). High relevance is attributed to the ecosystem services framework for developed countries where it is expected to become one of the leading influences in environmental policy in the coming years (Matzdorf and Meyer, 2014). An inventory of the use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in The Netherlands has indicated that the concept seems to be gaining foothold. In several projects the approach is not only seen as valuable for better decisions with respect to sustainable land management, but also to attract more funding for the plans due to the involvement of broader stakeholder groups (Van Wensem, 2013).
Box 1 Basics for the ecosystem services (ES) concept decision making process. The basics for the decision making process with the ES concept are for instance described by six steps distinguished in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB, 2012) for decision making by local and regional authorities: Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem (including stakeholder inventory). Step 2: Identify which ES are relevant to the decision. Step 3: Define the information needs and select appropriate methods. Step 4: Assess the changes that are expected in the flow of ES. Step 5: Identify and assess policy options. Step 6: Assess distributional impacts of policy options.
799
Box 2 Overview of ecosystem services related to groundwater (not exhaustive) (based on Stuurman and Griffioen, 2003, with additions and regrouping). Providing services: – – – – – –
Drinking water Water for food and beverage industry Water supply for agricultural activities, such as irrigation Strategic groundwater resources Process water for industry Cooling water for industry
Regulating services: – – – – – – – –
Groundwater as a storage medium for heat or coolness Groundwater as a supplier of coolness and warmth Maintain groundwater level and prevent subsidence Maintain groundwater level and stability of civil engineering constructions Water retention, drainage (water buffering) Water supply in groundwater dependent surface water regimes Water supply in groundwater dependent seepage areas Purifying and filtering effect of groundwater and soil
Cultural services – Preservation of cultural–historical and archeological values – Esthetical and ethical values of the groundwater ecosystem Supporting services: – Groundwater functions and processes (indirectly) related to ecosystem services – Role of groundwater in the biogeochemical cycles
Before considering the meaning of the ecosystem services concept for sustainable groundwater management, a closer look is needed on groundwater related ecosystem services, the meaning of groundwater management and the adjective ‘sustainable’. These subjects are addressed in the following paragraphs. 3. Groundwater related ecosystem services The groundwater ecosystem (the ecosystem of the water-saturated soil) provides essential ecosystem services. European Union residents depend for 75% of their water supply on groundwater (EC, 2008). Groundwater is extracted for human consumption like drinking water, use in processing of food and breweries, storage and supply of coolness and warmth, water buffering and moisture supply for crops. Groundwater is of vital importance to groundwater dependent ecosystems, like wetlands, and their ecosystem services (Kløve et al., 2011). Classifications of groundwater related ecosystem services are presented by Stuurman and Griffioen (2003), and Landers and Nahlik (2013). Box 2 presents a compilation of groundwater related services, ordered in the four classes of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Hassan et al., 2005). This compilation is mainly useful in the context of communication and awareness raising. It can function as an eye-opener for the appreciation of the value and potential uses of groundwater. Depending on the intended use of the classification, the listing can be shorter or more detailed and the descriptions of the services can vary. CICES lists of ecosystem services (Haynes-Young and Potschin,
800
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
Box 3 Examples of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) related to groundwater (source: Landers and Nahlik, 2013). Beneficiary categories and sub-categories
FEGS (category)
Importance of FEGS to the Beneficiary
Municipal drinking water plant operators
Water
Residential property owners
Presence of the environment
Experiencers and viewers
Presence of the environment Viewscapes Sounds and scents
Water suitable for processing by a municipal drinking water plant Opportunity for placement of infrastructure and reduced/increased risk of subsidence and sinkholes on the property Opportunity to view the environment and organisms within it, and groundwater phenomena Landscape that provides a sensory experience Sounds and scents that provide a sensory experience
2013) are used for mapping purposes and descriptions need to be easily translated to spatial entities. The EPA listing of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS; Landers and Nahlik, 2013) is very useful for stakeholder identification and payment agreements, because the FEGS are directly related to the importance for the beneficiary, or direct user of the good or service. An example of the latter is presented in Box 3. In the EPA classification method only final ecosystem goods and services are identified. These are “components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being”. The classification excludes the so-called intermediate services, which are “ecological processes, functions, structures, characteristics, and interactions that are essential to the existence of final ecosystem goods and services but are not directly enjoyed, used, or consumed by beneficiaries” (Landers and Nahlik, 2013). The supporting and part of the regulating services presented in Box 2 belong to this group of intermediate services. CICES makes a similar choice by excluding supporting services, but includes some of the regulating services that are excluded in the EPA classification (HaynesYoung and Potschin, 2013). The rationale behind these fine-tunings of the classifications is to avoid double counting when valuation of ecosystem services is involved. The processes and functions involved in intermediate services are indirectly included in the value of the final goods and services and a separate valuation would be a double counting. However, other purposes for classifications than valuation may justify the explicit mentioning of intermediate services. As stated before, it can be worthwhile to mention them in communicating the broad spectrum of groundwater services. Furthermore, intermediate services need to be protected in order to benefit from the FEGS on the long term. Groundwater protection directed to FEGS delivered to beneficiaries only might be insufficient to ensure this long term delivery of ecosystem services. Therefore, in a classification system directed to groundwater protection the explicit mentioning of intermediate services is recommendable. 4. Sustainable groundwater management Groundwater management refers to the activities of involved parties to maintain and improve quantitative and qualitative properties of groundwater. Management is performed at specific scales, e.g. local, regional, national and trans-boundary. The reasons for the need of groundwater management might be manifold, including the prevention of and counteracting on threats like drought, flooding and poor drinking water quality. A need for management can also exist when different kinds of uses of the groundwater occur in the same area, like agriculture, drinking water extraction and nature (Van den Brink et al., 2008). Groundwater management, than, can facilitate the combined use of groundwater. Groundwater is referred to as a critical natural capital with a high value for livelihoods, economies and societies (Bergkamp
and Cross, 2006), which underlines the importance of a responsible management. However, public awareness of the value of groundwater is often poor. The groundwater is literally ‘out of sight’ in, for instance, spatial planning decisions (Kløve et al., 2011; Lerner and Harris, 2009; Bergkamp and Cross, 2006). The absence of an ‘owner’ of the groundwater can contribute to this poor visibility. Thus groundwater management needs awareness raising and recognition of responsible stakeholders. The societal importance of groundwater management is reflected by conflicts, from local to international scale, that arise when sustainable management is difficult to achieve (Amery and Wolf, 2004). The adjective ‘sustainable’ has been described in many different ways (Llamas et al., 2006) but a generally accepted over-arching description is that it refers to an approach which aims to satisfy current needs without compromising the needs of future generations (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). To operationalize this description, the triple P concept (people, planet, prosperity; United Nations, 2002) is often used. This means that sustainability (at least) comprises societal, natural (environmental) and economic aspects. However, to be of practical use in groundwater management, a further translation of these over-arching descriptions is needed. There is no objective measure for sustainability. Approaches at different scale levels intend to contribute to it. An example at high scale level is the EU Water Framework Directive (and the daughter Groundwater Directive), which intends to support at European level the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater “as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use” (EC, 2000). The further work-out of this framework is at the level of river basins and groundwater bodies within these. Many groundwater management decisions relate to lower scale level, within the scale of groundwater systems and the landscape scale. Historically, important elements in sustainable groundwater management include a balance between groundwater use and recharge and pollution prevention (Kløve et al., 2011; Lerner and Harris, 2009; EC, 2000). Thus, sustainable groundwater management is closely related to surface water management and land use (Lerner and Harris, 2009). Based upon the above reflection on management and sustainability, we distinguish some key elements for sustainable groundwater management: – Societal, natural (environmental) and economic aspects are considered together. – Awareness of the value of the natural capital and its potential uses and threats is a pre-condition (for decision makers, public). – Stakeholder involvement and ownership are important. – The adequate scale levels should be addressed. – The management has a long term scope. – Quantity and quality aspects are both considered. – Prevention prevails over treatment (in case of pollution and other stressors).
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
5. Does the ecosystem services concept contribute to sustainable groundwater management? Practical experience with the ecosystem services concept in groundwater management is still scarce. Therefore, this chapter discusses the potential contribution of the concept. A general observation is that the key elements of a sustainable groundwater management as derived in the previous paragraph are, more or less, all included in the ecosystem services concept. This suggests a logical fit of the concept in sustainable groundwater management. Another observation, at least in The Netherlands, is that decision making at landscape scale, whether or not groundwater issues are involved, is often according to the process steps of TEEB (Box 1). The increase in stakeholder involvement in decision making is referred to as ‘the energetic society’ and is seen as a driver of sustainable development (Hajer, 2011). Both the growing experience with stakeholder participation and the focus on the landscape scale attribute to the logical fit of the ecosystem services concept. However, the success of the concept and its contribution to sustainable groundwater management will largely depend on other aspects than the concept itself. Local and actual circumstances, policy ambitions and knowledge availability will play an important role. Therefore we will discuss the sustainability aspect by introducing some examples of the ecosystem services concept in practice. Example 1. New York drinking water supply 90% of New York's drinking water originates from large watersheds north of the city, mainly surface water. Due to diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, high investments were foreseen in the 1980s for additional filtration of the water. Negotiation and dialog between the municipality and farmer communities resulted in an agreement in 1993 in which farmers should reduce their footprint (mainly due to fertilization practices with animal manure) on the environment, getting in return support and less regulation. Due to the success of the program the high investment costs could be avoided due to a balancing of ecosystem services for agriculture and drinking water (Appleton, 2002). In this example, awareness and stakeholder negotiations play an important role. All the key elements of a sustainable approach, as derived in the chapter above, seem to be included. Whether the solution is long term sustainable depends largely on the balance between the trade-offs of water protection and the economic vitality of the communities in the area (Smith and Porter, 2010). Example 2. Land use and drinking water abstraction in Holten (The Netherlands). In the area around the little village of Holten in the east of The Netherlands groundwater conflicts arose between agricultural land use and groundwater abstraction for drinking water. The agricultural land use impacted the groundwater quality (mainly nitrate) in an area with vulnerable groundwater resources. A negotiation support system was set up in cooperation with stakeholders in the area. Groundwater transport modeling was used to show the impact of land use scenarios on the infiltrating and abstracted groundwater. Land uses included agriculture, nature (forested areas), recreation and urban areas. The shared information due to the negotiation support system helped all stakeholders to accept necessary changes in land use (Van den Brink et al., 2008). Like the New York example, this case refers to balancing the ecosystem service of providing clean water for drinking water with agricultural and other land use. It shows the importance of shared information in the stakeholder negotiation process and the importance of visualization of the conflicting interests.
801
Example 3. Kumamoto payment for groundwater recharge (Japan) 80% of the drinking water in the Japanese city of Kumamoto is groundwater originating from the surrounding area. Rice paddies account for one third of the recharge capacity in the area. In recent years the groundwater level has been lowered as a result of reduced rice production and urbanization in and around Kumamoto City. The semiconductor industry extracts significant amounts of groundwater. Cooperation between industry, a local NGO, a local agricultural cooperative and the local municipality resulted in a payment for farmers for groundwater recharge. Volunteering local farmers were paid by the industry to flood abandoned and non-abandoned rice fields with water from a nearby river, resulting in recharge of the amount of groundwater extracted by the local industry (Nishimiya, 2010). The example is a case study in the TEEB project. It illustrates a ‘business case’ between the stakeholders mentioned. The sustainability of this solution is difficult to judge, for example because information on water quality and quantity aspects and the social context is scarce. Example 4. Ughelen water chain solution (The Netherlands) In the past, a paper factory extracted large quantities of groundwater (8 million l per year) resulting in a lowering of the groundwater level of about 4 m in the urbanized vicinity. Once the factory closed, water quantity problems arose in the residential area. As a solution, the municipality took responsibility for the complete water chain. Groundwater was extracted to such an extent that problems for the residential area were avoided. Furthermore, the groundwater was used as a source for heating and cooling of buildings. It was supplied to several companies for their processing on the condition of purification before it was discharged in a small stream that was previously dried out and now restored with a sufficient water bearing capacity. The water from the stream is partly extracted by a drinking water company (IenM, 2012). This example illustrates the meaning of ownership. In this case the municipality took the responsibility for the groundwater chain. Optimal use was made of the groundwater ecosystem services. The approach has positive results considering people, planet and prosperity. It takes into account the scale of the local groundwater system. Whether the approach is sustainable on the long term depends mainly on the ambitions of the involved stakeholders (municipality, residents, companies) and the sustained ownership of the municipality. The examples illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. An additional question that remains is whether the solutions are sustainable on the long term. For several reasons, this long term scope is of vital importance, especially for groundwater. 6. The ecosystem services concept and long term groundwater management The groundwater ecosystem is in general a slowly changing system. The age of the groundwater, which is the period of aging of the water after infiltration as surface- or rain water, can vary between tens and thousands of years, depending on the hydrological system. Groundwater layers in the ‘Grote Slenk’ in The Netherlands, for instance, contain groundwater which is tens of thousands years old (Stuurman and Griffioen, 2003). Due tot the generally large volumes of groundwater in aquifers the potential adverse effects of intensive groundwater use generally take one or two generations to become apparent (Llamas et al., 2006). Long term sustainable use of ecosystem services is supported by some basic guidelines for the application of the ecosystem services concept (TCB, 2003; modified from EFSA, 2010): 1. Prevent exhaustion of natural resources by over-exploitation (see for instance the groundwater extraction in Example 3).
802
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803
2. Prevent side effects on other than the optimized ecosystem services and on surrounding ecosystems. For instance, agricultural areas, with optimized food production, can have a significant impact on groundwater quality and quantity, the latter due to intensive use of groundwater to water the crops. As a result, surrounding groundwater depending ecosystems can suffer from drought effects due to lower groundwater levels. According to Kløve et al., 2011, the interdependencies between ecosystem services of groundwater dependent ecosystems and groundwater are poorly understood and often not recognized in decision making and management of water resources. 3. Keep the recovery capacity of the services intact: the services temporarily less available or absent, possibly for a protracted period, must be able to return. This is illustrated by the subsidence problem of the Dutch peat areas. Historical agricultural land use in Dutch peat areas, including artificial lowering of the groundwater level, results in irreversible loss of the peat due to decomposition and in compaction of the soils. The process of land subsidence leads to elevated risks of flooding and increasing upward seepage of brackish and nutrient rich ground water (Hoogland et al., 2012). If the process continues, the peat areas will be lost. 4. Give each ecosystem service the requisite space. Spatial planning can contribute to the protection of natural resources. With respect to groundwater, the hydrological system within (or exceeding outside) a landscape is an important factor for the relevant scale for decision making (Griffioen et al., 2003). It might be necessary, based upon the vulnerability of the groundwater, to define areas with restrictions toward the land use for the maintenance of a groundwater ecosystem service on the long term, for instance for drinking water purposes (Lerner and Harris, 2009). 7. Discussion and conclusion The ecosystem services concept seems to get foothold in environmental policy and management. With respect to groundwater management there is a challenge to incorporate this concept in such a way that it contributes to the sustainability of decisions. The available classifications and listings of groundwater related ecosystem services can be of practical help, whereby the purpose of the listing (valuation, protection, mapping etc.) determines in part the listed services. Especially the supporting or intermediate services are of vital importance in the context of groundwater protection and difficult to address in classification systems for valuation and mapping of ecosystem services. It is recognized that the key elements of sustainable groundwater management are more or less all included in the ecosystem services concept. Knowledge is a vital factor. Daily et al. (2009) conclude that the state of knowledge and the development of policy and finance mechanisms for incorporating natural capital into resource- and land-use decisions are considered to be insufficient to apply the ecosystem services concept at large scale. However, the ecosystem services concept at least may provide transparency on what is known and unknown. As shown in the “Holten example” in this paper (Example 2), shared information and visualization of conflicting and shared interests is needed to reach socially embedded solutions. The information needs, include for instance the characterization of the natural resources, the amounts, the ‘value’ that can be attributed to them et cetera. The type of groundwater system and the amount of groundwater available to deliver services like ‘coolness’ or drinking water should be quantified as much as possible, to provide the necessary information for decision making. This includes not only monetary valuation, but also the value for society in a wider context. Though the scientific basis is developing (TCB, 2012b), the knowledge-availability still can be a critical factor in decision making based upon ecosystem services. The value of the concept is that, in the inventory and starting phase of decision making, a broad spectrum of ecosystem services can be
considered, including the groundwater related and groundwater unrelated services in the area of concern. This integral approach fits with sustainable groundwater management, that needs to connect groundwater with surface water and land use. Whether the application of the ecosystem services concept in groundwater management will result in sustainable decision making will depend significantly on the ambition of the involved parties and available knowledge. The examples in this article illustrate that awareness of the value of groundwater can result in balanced decisions with respect to the use of ecosystem services. However, it is not shown that the decisions are sustainable for the long term. Sustainability will increase when more of the identified key elements for sustainable groundwater management are fully used and the guidelines for long term use of ecosystem services are respected. References Amery HA, Wolf AT. Water in the Middle East: a geography of peace. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press; 2004. Appleton AF. How New York City used an ecosystem services strategy carried out through an urban–rural partnership to preserve the pristine quality of its drinking water and save billions of dollars. A paper for Forest Trends — Tokyo; 2002. Bergkamp G, Cross K. Groundwater and ecosystem services: towards their sustainable use. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability (ISGWAS), Alicante, Spain, 24–27 January 2006; 2006. p. 177–93. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kaveira PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7. 21-18. EC European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy; 2000. EC European Commission. Groundwater protection in Europe; 2008. EFSA European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. EFSA J 2010;8(10):1821. EU European Union. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Discussion paper — final 978-92-79-29369-6; 2013. Griffioen J, Notenboom J, Schraa G, Stuurman RJ, Runhaar H, Van Wirdum G. System oriented groundwater management. Groningen/Houten, The Netherlands: Wolters Noordhoff; 2003 [In Dutch]. Hajer M. The energetic society. In search of a governance philosophy for a clean economy. Report No. 500070012. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; 2011. [In Dutch]. Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press; 2005. Haynes-Young R, Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August–December 2012. Report to the European Environment Agency. EEA framework contract number EEA/IEA/09/ 003; 2013. Hoogland T, Van den Akker JJH, Brus DJ. Modeling the subsidence of peat soils in the Dutch coastal area. Geoderma 2012;171–172:92–7. IenM Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. The triple-O approach. Ecosystem services in the practice of sustainable land management and regional development. (in Dutch). Available from: http://www.rwsleefomgeving.nl/onderwerpen/bodemondergrond/bodembeleid/publicaties/triple-aanpak/, 2012. Kløve B, Allan A, Bertrand G, Druzynska E, Erturk A, Goldscheider N, et al. Groundwater dependent ecosystems. Part II. Ecosystem services and management in Europe under risk of climate change and land use intensification. Environ Sci Pol 2011;14: 782–93. Landers DH, Nahlik AM. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGSCS). EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report number EPA/600/R13/ORD-004914; 2013. Lerner DN, Harris B. The relationship between land use and groundwater resources and quality. Land Use Policy 2009;26S:S265–73. Llamas MR, Martinez-Santos P, de la Hera A. National Ground Water Association Press, Ohio, USA. ISBN 1-56034-131-9, pp 105–116. 2006. Matzdorf B, Meyer C. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 2014;38:509–21. Nishimiya H. Payments for ground water recharge, Japan; 2010 [Available at: TEEBweb.org]. Otte P, Maring L, De Cleen M, Boekhold S. Transition in soil policy and associated knowledge development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012;4:565–72. Smith LED, Porter KS. Management of catchments for the protection of water resources: drawing on the New York City watershed experience. Reg Environ Change 2010; 10:311–26. Stuurman RJ, Griffioen J. System based groundwater management. Three cases with groundwater management problems. Commissioned by TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. TCB Report 18; 2003. [In Dutch]. TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Towards a more ecologically sustainable land use. Report number A33. The Hague, the Netherlands; 2003.
J. Tuinstra, J. van Wensem / Science of the Total Environment 485–486 (2014) 798–803 TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Advice groundwater. Report number A074. The Hague, The Netherlands: TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee; 2012a. [In Dutch]. TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee. Advice better decisions with ecosystem services. Report number A073. The Hague, The Netherlands: TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee; 2012b. [in Dutch]. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management. In: Wittmer H, Gundimeda H, editors. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2012. [384 pp. Also see: http://www.teebweb.org]. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
803
United NationsReport of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South-Africa, 26 August–4 September; 2002. [New York]. Van den Brink C, et al. Using a groundwater quality negotiation support system to change land use management near drinking-water abstraction in The Netherlands. J Hydrol 2008;350:339–56. Van Wensem J. Use of the ecosystem services concept in landscape management in The Netherlands. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9(nr 2):237–42. Van Wensem J, et al. Tools and concepts for sustainable management of the subsurface in the Netherlands: a technical investigation. Barcelona: AquaConSoil proceedings; 2013.
