Blanchard et al. 2015 Ecosystem Services

1Ecosystem Services Journal submission 2Manuscript Type: Original Research Article The Lost Narrative: Ecosystem Service Narratives and the Missing Wasatch Watershed Conservation Story By Libby Blanchard*†, Bhaskar Vira,* and Laura Briefer** 7* Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge, 8CB2 3EN, United Kingdom 9** Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, 1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake 10City, Utah, 84115, United States 11 12† Corresponding Author: libby.blanchard@geog.cam.ac.uk +44(0)7784 375728 13 14 16 1 18Abstract 19Salt Lake City’s preservation of the Wasatch watershed as its water source is an 20important historical example of the economic and instrumental rationale for 21investing in ecosystem services in general and protecting watersheds in particular 22This story predates the dominant example of New York City’s preservation of the 23Catskills that is prevalent in the ecosystem services literature, yet is largely absent 24from the historical and contemporary academic and grey literature on valuing 25ecosystem services While the Catskills example has been used to provide the 26impetus for wider replication of ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ (PES) and other 27market-based approaches to manage the needs of multiple stakeholders in 28watershed and additional environmental contexts, the legitimacy of this example for 29justifying an instrumental and economic rationale for conserving nature has been 30shown to be flawed This paper considers the limitations of the Catskills as an 31illustrative example of the economic benefit of valuing ecosystem services, and 32proposes the story of the preservation of the Wasatch watershed as an alternative 33success story that uses regulatory instruments and zoning to protect an urban water 34supply while simultaneously serving the recreational and other needs of 35stakeholders in the area 36 2 38Keywords 39ecosystem services 40history of 41watershed 42narratives 43Wasatch 44Catskills 3 451 INTRODUCTION 46The dominant example which illustrates the economic and instrumental rationale 47for investing in ecosystem services in general, and protecting watersheds in 48particular, is the story of New York City’s preservation of the Catskill/Delaware 49watershed, a 2,000 square mile area containing 19 reservoirs and aqueducts that 50provide 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water each day to million New Yorkers 51As the popular narrative attests, in 1996, New York City was faced with a choice of 52investing $1-1.5 billion in natural capital by protecting and sustaining the 53Catskill/Delaware watershed for water filtration from non-point pollution sources, 54or building a new filtration plant—an estimated $6-$8 billion for design and 55construction, followed by another $300 million annually to maintain , to comply 56with federal amendments to the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) Faced with these 57options, New York City, in 1997, chose, after lengthy negotiations and collaboration 58with watershed communities and state and federal regulators, to preserve and 59restore the Catskill/Delaware watershed with a watershed management and 60conservation program that would safeguard the public from waterborne diseases, 61instead of achieving the same end through building more expensive filtration 62facilities The common narrative of the Catskills declares that by investing in and 63restoring the natural capital of this watershed, New York City produced “a cost 64savings of $6 billion-$8 billion over 10 years” 65This success story, originally published in Nature in 1988, has been widely repeated, 66amplified, and promoted , and as a result, the Catskills has become by many 41 For a detailed analysis of the Catskills narrative and its contestation, see Sagoff (2002) 67accounts the most famous argument for investing in and preserving ecosystem 68services in the world Sagoff (2002) writes that the Catskills/Delaware watershed 69narrative is widely used to “stand the traditional development-versus-preservation 70debate on its head by arguing that ecosystems should be preserved in their natural 71condition for rather than in spite of economic values and concerns” (p.17) He adds: 72“The belief that New York City, to restore the purity of its water supply, has paid 73around $1 billion to purchase and preserve land in the Catskills, has led many 74scientists to accept an intuitively appealing hypothesis: we benefit more when we 75preserve nature than when we develop or cultivate it” 76Protecting ecosystems for the services they provide can be done through either 77regulatory or market-based approaches, or some combination therein Up until the 781980s, regulation was the dominant strategy for the conservation of nature and 79specific ecosystems However, in the last thirty years, market logic has been 80increasingly used to justify environmental programs and policies that have 81traditionally been defended by nonmarket values and ethics This shift has its origin 82in the late 1970s and 1980s, when US Presidents Carter and Reagan began to use 83cost-benefit analysis as a procedural device to review and justify major 84governmental regulations, including social and environmental regulation Since that 85time, environmental conservation has become increasingly forced to respond to the 86logic of economic costs and benefits 87The field of biodiversity conservation has increasingly used market logic in its 88practice , and the development of market-based approaches to address 89environmental conservation have proliferated Such market-based approaches 90include payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, conservation finance 91mechanisms such as biodiversity derivatives and offsets, mitigation banking , and 92most recently Water Funds that have been developed as financial tools to promote 93the protection of watersheds 94To some, this trend towards market-based conservation is an asset for the 95environmental movement, because it provides policymakers with economic 96arguments for conserving nature Others are skeptical of this shift to incentive97based approaches to conservation, and question the ability of markets to create 98social and environmental benefits Some see this expansion of markets into 99conservation as part of the wider process of neoliberalisation , and worry that 100instead of contributing to environmental conservation, the use of market logic could 101ultimately harm reaching the desired outcomes of the conservation movement 102Moreover, despite the rapid emergence of market-based solutions within 103environmental policy, a tension does exist within environmental conservation 104professionals over the extent to which they agree with the expanded use of markets 105in conservation 106Within the academic and grey literature on the conservation of watersheds, there 107are examples of both regulation and markets being effective mechanisms to protect 108water sources However, the particular Catskills example has uniquely proliferated 109over the last 20 years, and is widely used as an origin story of successful watershed 110management, which uses market-based incentives Along with this story’s 111proliferation has been the spread of initiatives which promote watershed protection 112and management through market-based incentives, replicating the widely-held 113narrative of the Catskills 114While there are watersheds that are successfully managed through regulatory 115means, the academic literature pays insufficient attention to these alternative origin 116stories of watershed protection Salt Lake City’s successful regulatory approach to 117conserving the Wasatch watershed for the ecosystem services it provides is one such 118alternative This paper finds that the Wasatch watershed—as a key historical 119example of a watershed that is successfully managed and maintained via a 120regulatory approach—does not feature much in the academic literature, despite its 121potential as an exemplar of an alternative, regulatory-centred approach to investing 122in ecosystem services Given the Wasatch’s absence from the literature, this paper 123then describes the protection of the Wasatch watershed as an alternative example to 124the Catskills as a narrative that perhaps better illustrates the wider economic and 125instrumental rationale for investing in ecosystem services, without recourse to 126payments and financialised transactions Finally, the paper considers the limitations 127and implications of the Wasatch watershed’s absence from the ecosystem services 128literature We argue that the dominance of the Catskills example in discussions of 129watershed protection provides an unduly limited, and historically incomplete, 130perspective on interventions to secure watershed ecosystem services, and limits the 131literature as well as policy discussions in relation to alternative (watershed) 132conservation approaches 133 1342 Methods 135We conducted a systematic literature review to determine the extent to which the 136Wasatch watershed is discussed in the academic literature on valuing and investing 137in ecosystem services and protecting watersheds This search was conducted in both 138the academic and grey literature, following the methodology outlined in Guidelines 139for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management – Version 3.1 140in October, 2014 The review was carried out following a search strategy that had 141been established a priori After developing and pilot testing search terms to 142determine their degree of relevance, the search terms Wasatch, water, ecosystem 143services, watershed, natural capital, and combinations therein were used in 144electronic searches on the Internet via Google to search online databases and 145websites of conservation organizations for material Grey literature, including 146unpublished papers and technical reports, were also considered 147Given the absence of the Wasatch in the academic literature from our literature 148review, this paper then provides a description of the current regulatory structures 149that manage the Wasatch watershed to address this gap The methods used to 150develop this account of the Wasatch system involved a review of secondary 151documents and policy documents, along with structured dialogues with key 152stakeholders involved in the protection of the Wasatch watershed and the delivery of 153urban water services to the Salt Lake City area One of the co-authors of the paper 154works directly in the Department of Public Utilities in Salt Lake City, so has a specific 155positionality in relation to the operation of the protection scheme, as well as 156privileged access to information that is relevant to this narrative 1583 Results 1593.1 Results of the Literature Review 160While the Catskills/Delaware watershed story is dominant within the academic and 161policy literature as an origin story providing the instrumental rationale for investing 162in ecosystem services , our literature review found that the successful conservation 163of the Wasatch watershed is entirely absent from the ecosystem services academic 164literature.2 The story of the Wasatch watershed is also largely absent from the 165literature on the protection of ecosystem services and the value of investing in 166natural capital more generally, with the limited exception of Postel and Thompson 167(2005) in the academic literature, and Berry (2010) in the grey literature Our 168review finds that the Wasatch case is far less cited and less well known than the 169more celebrated New York example 170The academic literature that does exist on the Wasatch watershed is limited almost 171exclusively to law reviews, and focuses primarily on relatively narrow themes: 172conflicts of recreational use ; water rights in Western States and the Colorado River 173Basin e.g ; and the historical protection and restoration of land, the Great Salt Lake 174itself, or particular creeks within the watershed None of the latter, however, focus 175on the Wasatch watershed in particular, nor focus on, or use the vocabulary of 102 See, for example, historical literature on the recognition of ecosystem services, including: Westman, 111977; De Groot, 1987; Costanza & Daly, 1992; Perrings et al 1997; and Daily, 1997 12 176natural capital or ecosystem services Additional literature on the Wasatch 177watershed is related to scientific assessments of change in precipitation and species 178diversity in the watershed due to climate change, and climate change adaptation 179strategies involving the watershed 180The story of the Wasatch watershed has also been largely absent in the grey 181literature on ecosystem services While there is mention of the Catskills initiative in 182the major US and international websites on ecosystem services and conservation 183(such as nwf.org, panda.org, and the Moore Foundation, amongst others), there is no 184mention of the Wasatch watershed in any of these portals, nor on more overtly 185market-focused conservation and ecosystem-services oriented websites, such as 186ecosystemmarketplace.com or TEEBweb.org Within the grey literature, the Wasatch 187watershed story has been limited primarily to reports produced by Carpe Diem 188West3 and Salt Lake County, much more regionally-specific outlets, with very little of 189the wider impact that the more prominent Catskills narrative has been able to 190generate 1913.2 Overview of The Wasatch Watershed Protection System 192Given the absence of the Wasatch watershed story from the ecosystem services 193literature and discussions about the conservation of ecosystems, we present it here 194in some detail to provide an account of how watersheds can be instrumentally and 195economically valued and conserved via regulatory approaches, without requiring 133 Carpe Diem West is a nonprofit organization “that leads a broad-based network of experts, 14advocates, economists, decision makers and scientists to address the profound impacts the growing 15climate crisis is having on water in the American West” (http://www.carpediemwest.org/who-we16are) 17 10 367watershed communities and state and federal regulators Such similarities make the 368two watersheds interesting to compare as two alternative examples of how 369watersheds have been protected and conserved in America over the last century 370The programs, do, however, have important differences First, the programs are 371trying to achieve different goals, responding to different needs in different settings 372The Catskills story that is widely repeated centers around New York City’s 373compliance with the SWDA in 1996 The story that we have presented of the 374Wasatch watershed, however, is broader, and dates back to the beginning of its 375protection, as our attempt is to share the broader history of the conservation of the 376watershed Indeed, every conservation program will be met with different 377geophysical challenges and distinct social histories, and different conservation 378mechanisms and institutional solutions have involved in these unique contexts to 379deliver municipal water services effectively However, comparing these two 380programs is valuable and important when considering the origin stories that 381motivate alternative approaches to environmental management, and when 382examining the different ways that institutions manage water in different social 383contexts 384The conservation strategy and policies to protect the ecosystem services of the 385Wasatch watershed are different than the strategies discussed in the popular 386Catskill/Delaware watershed narrative Indeed, the Wasatch watershed is largely 387unique in contemporary examples of watershed protection in the ecosystem services 388literature, including the Catskills example, in that it i) does not have a PES 40 19 389component and ii) specifically uses broadly non-exclusionary regulation Distinctly, 390the suite of policies protecting the Wasatch watershed not include a PES or other 391market-based incentives component, nor has there been any discussion of 392compensating potential resource users in the watershed for foregone economic 393opportunities (Briefer, pers comm) Thus, the Wasatch example provides an 394alternative regulatory-based solution for the protection of natural capital, which 395contrasts with the now prevalent market-based payments approach The Wasatch 396case is one example of watershed protection where regulation enforces the polluter 397pays principle, as opposed to the ‘beneficiary pays’ approach that is implicit in PES 398schemes, and challenges the view that PES is the most effective, or direct, means of 399achieving conservation outcomes 400Second, the Wasatch watershed’s regulations are not fully exclusionary Unlike the 401cities of Portland, OR and Santa Fe, NM, who have worked with the USFS to prohibit 402public access to source water watersheds within USFS jurisdictions in order to 403protect the quality of drinking water supplies, Salt Lake City allows public access 404and both commercial and non-commercial activities to occur in its watershed, given 405a set of regulatory constraints on land use and recreation Regulatory exclusion is 406often thought of as the only viable alternative to market based incentives, but Salt 407Lake City has been able to preserve the natural capital that protects its watershed 408while allowing heavy recreational use and not needing to exclude users (but, 409imposing restrictions on allowable uses) In many ways, this permitted use, which is 410socially negotiated , helps mitigate the potential trade-offs associated with 41 20 411protection activities, as well as reducing the need to compensate resource users for 412lost access, which is often the motivation for the introduction of PES schemes 413Such differences are precisely why alternative narratives, such as the Wasatch case 414study, matter to our understanding of strategies to protect natural capital for 415ecosystem services, and should be included in the academic literature The Wasatch 416example provides an on-going success story that demonstrates how ecosystem 417services can be protected and managed through non-financialised methods and in 418the absence of payment transactions, using a mix of regulatory restrictions and 419permitted uses This is in contrast to a large body of literature that suggests that 420there are only two ways to conserve ecosystem services, either through strict 421exclusionary regulation of use, or through payments, which offset the costs of 422exclusion for potential users The Salt Lake City example shows that there is a third 423option to successfully preserving natural capital, via non-exclusionary regulation 424without compensatory payments 425The Wasatch watershed is both an alternative historical origin story of the 426successful preservation of natural capital for the services it provides, and a present 427day example that shows that regulatory systems can and deliver ecosystem 428services While the Wasatch’ s regulatory strategy is one that developed over time in 429a particular socio-historic context, other successful regulatory frameworks for 430watershed protection are prevalent in other jurisdictions, which the continued 431success of the Wasatch example supports In addition to the exclusionary regulation 432of the watersheds of Portland, Oregon or Santa Fe, NM, watershed management 42 21 433strategies in the European Union and the United Kingdom provide examples of 434institutional approaches that are usually more regulatory and not necessarily reliant 435on incentives and markets Examples include command and control regulations such 436as the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and Water Framework and 437Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directives, and the regulatory management 438of the United Kingdom’s River Basin Districts and via River Basin Management Plans 439 The Wasatch watershed shows that these alternative regulatory approaches to 440watershed management can and deliver ecosystem services, and are viable 441alternatives to the perceived necessity for compensatory payments for the provision 442of watershed services Equally, it is important to acknowledge that the particular 443political contexts and ideologies that define the possibilities for alternative 444approaches cannot always be replicated – in some senses, the early twentieth 445century was a unique moment in American environmental politics, allowing the 446Wasatch example to emerge in its particular way, in contrast to the dominance of 447neoliberalising tendencies towards the end of that century, which characterised the 448Catskills context 4504.1 Problems with the Popular Catskills Example 451We maintain, however, that alternative accounts are important, and this is especially 452so when widely repeated origin stories break down A closer reading of the iconic 453Catskills example shows that the commonly-held view, as cited and summarised in 454the introduction to this paper, is not entirely accurate Sagoff (2002) notes that the 455original paper in Nature on the Catskills that gave rise to it as a success story cites 43 22 456no source of evidence that the city’s $1 billion investment restored or preserved the 457natural capital of the Catskills watershed Nor did the city need to, as New York City 458water quality had not declined leading up to the 1996 SDWA amendment (according 459to an exhaustive National Research Council publication in 2000) In fact, Sagoff 460(2002) writes that in 1996, “Nothing had changed with respect to the safety or the 461quality of the City’s water supply” (p.19) and that the significant change that took 462place was the SDWA amendment to provide additional protection of national public 463drinking water sources, and in particular to protect against degraded water sources 464that are a risk to public health, even when treatment systems were in place, 465particularly to protect against the microbe Cryptosporidium parvum, which can 466survive chlorination The SDWA required that “every surface-water system serving 467more than 10,000 people…either filter that water or successfully petition the EPA for 468a ‘filtration avoidance determination’ (FAD)” New York City petitioned for an FAD 469with the commitment that they would “partner with landowners and communities 470to make sure [any future] economic development would not impair water quality” 471While the city did partner with communities to protect future water quality, Sagoff 472(2002) notes that the majority of the city’s investment went into “grey” 473infrastructure investments as opposed to “green” natural capital, in contrast to what 474is portrayed in the popular narrative Specifically, the city invested in subsidies for 475better sewage and septic systems and for improved farm waste management, dam 476and pipe renovations, waste-treatment, septic-system improvement, and farm477operations enhancements As Sagoff’s 2002 research shows, as of 2001, the city had 478only purchased 19,200 acres of land to appease “those in authority who believed 44 23 479that wildlife habitat provided purification services” and had capped at $260 million 480the amount it may eventually spend on land preservation While the market-based 481incentives used in the Catskills included voluntary, incentive-based watershed 482protection programs and conservation easements , PES via land purchasing only 483made up a small part of the overall watershed conservation strategy Thus, the story 484that investing $1 billion in land or natural capital was needed for the New York City 485to achieve its FAD is misleading at best 486The popular narrative of the Catskills, as presented in the introduction of this paper, 487depicts the Catskills as a success story for market-based incentives However, the 488Catskills management strategy post 1996 took a much more hybrid approach than is 489commonly depicted, and was not as purely market-based as some proponents of the 490narrative might desire Thus, despite the popularity and power of this narrative to 491promote the preservation of ecosystems via market-based incentives, the narrative 492has been shown to be at best partial, and quite possibly flawed We argue that given 493these flaws, it is even more important for alternative narratives to exist to illustrate 494the economic and instrumental rationale for investing in ecosystem services, 495including the Wasatch narrative, as well as many others 4964.2 Environmental Narratives 497As an aside, we find it interesting that some stories about the environment, such as 498that of the success of the Catskills, are “repeated, elaborated, and amplified” while 499other case studies, such as that of the protection of the Wasatch watershed, have 500remained limited or almost completely absent from the ecosystem services 45 24 501literature One way to consider this phenomenon is to see the widely repeated, albeit 502flawed, Catskills narrative as an environmental ‘narrative’ An environmental 503narrative is defined as “a simplified explanation of cause and effect relationships 504that assigns roles to different actors who are implicated (or not) in an 505environmental problem” Such narratives are stories, with premises and 506conclusions, revolving “around a sequence of events or positions in which something 507happens or from which something follows” Roe (1991) argues that such narratives 508“have the objective of getting their hearers to believe or something” (p.288) 509Environmental narratives, like all narratives, shape popular perceptions and appeal 510to policy makers seeking simple solutions Thus, environmental narratives, and the 511actors who create them, influence which challenges or problems are framed, and 512what policies and responses are prioritized 513One problem with dominant environmental narratives is that they can occlude 514alternative interpretations: in this case, other examples of successful environmental 515management (Callon and Law, 1982; Grillo 1997) Thus, we note that Catskills 516example could be seen as an environmental narrative that is widely deployed and 517replicated in such a way that prevents the consideration of other approaches to 518conservation or the regulation of landuse, and for investments in natural capital and 519the protection of watershed service functions, especially those that are based not on 520financialised payment systems, but on zoning, landuse protection, and non521exclusionary regulation 522 5235 CONCLUSION 46 25 524Our literature review revealed that the story of the Wasatch watershed, with its 525compelling alternative regulatory approach to the conservation of natural capital for 526the ecosystem services it provides, is largely absent from the academic and grey 527literature on ecosystem services In contrast to the dominant Catskills example, Salt 528Lake City’s conservation and protection of the Wasatch watershed provides a unique 529history of natural capital conservation and watershed protection, based on a non530exclusionary, regulatory approach that has been successful and resilient for over a 531century The story of the Wasatch watershed provides an important example of how 532multi-stakeholder interests can be managed through a mix of regulations 533implemented by multiple agencies, as well as the continuing importance of public 534land ownership and conservation for the delivery of wider societal benefits The 535Wasatch is an important contribution to the ecosystem services literature, as it 536shows there is a more diverse set of interventions possible beyond the simple focus 537on markets and incentives to managing watersheds that have become commonplace 538in recent discussions 539We argue that a broader framing of alternative approaches to managing natural 540capital for the delivery of ecosystem services would create a more inclusive 541acceptance of a plurality of solutions for ways to protect such important ecosystem 542services for human well being Alternative narrative histories and origin stories that 543highlight different interventions and strategies are important, and should be 544included within the growing literature on ecosystem services These diverse 545examples would and provide a more complete historical perspective on the ways 546in which ecosystem services have been delivered through mixed institutional 47 26 547responses, as well as inform alternative ways of protecting and conserving 548important forms of natural capital Additional historical examples and approaches to 549protecting natural capital add strength to the ecosystem services discourse, and are 550likely to benefit knowledge and scholarship in this field, while also responding 551effectively to critiques of the paradigm which mistakenly assume that an ecosystem 552approach necessarily entails the use of financialised approaches or payment 553mechanisms 554 555While this paper focuses on one example of the way in which natural capital can be 556conserved through regulation in the Wasatch watershed, we hope that it encourages 557a broader empirical research agenda, and recognition of a plurality of approaches 558that can enrich the ecosystem services literature In their absence, the history of 559protecting natural capital for ecosystem services is incomplete at best, and 560oversimplified at worst 48 27 5616 Acknowledgements 562The authors would like to thank the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities for 563their insights and contributions to this paper The views of the authors are not in any 564way associated with the organisations and institutions for whom they work 565Research undertaken by the lead author, Libby Blanchard, was made possible by the 566Gates Cambridge Trust 567 49 28 5687 References 569Alcott, E., Ashton, M.S., Gentry, B.S., 2013 Natural and Engineered Solutions for 570Drinking Water Supplies: Lessons from the Northeastern United States and 571Directions for Global Watershed Management Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton 572Alder, R.W., 1999 Toward Comprehensive Watershed-Based Restoration and 573Protection for Great Salt Lake Utah Law Review 99, 99-204 574Arsel, M., Büscher, B., 2012 Nature™ Inc.: Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal 575Conservation and Market-based Environmental Policy Development and Change 43, 57653-78 577Balmford, A., Bruner, A.G., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., 578Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., 579Rayment, M., Reosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K., Turner, K., 2002 Economic 580Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature Science 297, 950-953 581Bardsley, T., Wood, A., Hobbins, M., Kirkham, T., Briefer, L., Niermeyer, J., Burian, S., 5822013 Planning for an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment 583toward Adaptation Planning for Public Water Supply Earth Interactions 17, 1-26 584Bennett, G., Carroll, N., 2014 Gaining Depth: State of Watershed Investment 2014 585Berry, A., 2010 Literature Review: The Economic Value of Water and Watersheds on 586National Forest Lands in the United States Sonoran Institute 587Beymer-Farris, B.A., Bassett, T.J., 2012 The REDD menace: Resurgent protectionism 588in Tanzania's mangrove forests Global Environmental Change 22, 332-341 589Board, N.S., 2000 Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The 590Role of the National Science Foundation 591Boyd, E., 2009 Governing the Clean Development Mechanism: global rhetoric versus 592local realities in carbon sequestration projects Environment and Planning A 41, 5932380-2395 594Briggs, J., 2000 Ski Resorts and National Forests: Rethinking Forest Service 595Management Practices for Recreational Use Boston College Environmental Affairs 596Law Review, 79-118 597Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2012 Towards a 598Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation Capitalism Nature 599Socialism 23, 4-30 600CDW, nd Healthy Headwater's Success Story: Salt Lake City, Utah Remembering 601Our Relationship with Our Watershed Carpe Diem West 602CEBC, 2009 Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental 603Management, Version 3.1 Bangor University & Centre for Evidence-Based 604Conservation, Bangor, UK 605Chichilnisky, G., Heal, G., 1998 Economic returns from the biosphere Nature 391, 606629-630 607Cosman, D., Schmidt, R., Harrison-Cox, J., Batker, D., 2011 How Water Utilities Can 608Spearhead Natural Capital Accounting Solutions 609Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., 610Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997 The 611value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital Nature 387, 253-260 50 29 612Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992 Natural Capital and Sustainable Development 613Conservation Biology 6, 37-46 614Daily, G., Ellison, K., 2002 The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to Make 615Conservation Profitable Shearwater 616Davies, L.L., 2007 Just a Big, "Hot Fuss"? Assessing the Value of Connecting 617Suburban Sprawl, Land Use, and Water Rights through Assured Supply Laws 618Ecology Law Quarterly 34 619de Groot, R.S., 1987 Environmental Functions as a Unifying Concept for Ecology and 620Economics Environmentalist 7, 105-109 621Dzurik, A., 1996 Water Resources Planning, 2nd Edition ed Rowman & Littlefield, 622Lanham, MD 623EPA, U., 2004 Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act US EPA 624Ernst, C., 2004 Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the Future of 625America's Drinking Water, In: Hopper, K., Summers, D (Eds.) The Trust for Public 626Land 627Ferraro, P.J., Kiss, A., 2002 Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity Science 298, 6281718-1719 629Forsyth, T., 2003 Critical Political Ecology Routledge, London 630Forsyth, T., Walker, A., 2008 Forest guardians, forest destroyers: the politics of 631environmental knowledge in Northern Thailand University of Washington Press, 632Seattle 633Goldman, R.L., Benitez, S., Calvache, A., Ramos, A., 2010 Water funds: Protecting 634watersheds for nature and people The Nature Conservancy, Arlington 635Goldman-Benner, R.L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., 636Kroeger, T., Ramos, A., 2012 Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: 637practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice Oryx 46, 55-63 638Hooton, L.W.J., nd Salt Lake City Watershed Management Programs: 1847-1997 639Hu, W., 2000 US says New York City may have to spend $6 billion on filtration, The 640New York Times, pp B1-B8 641Jackson, R.B., Carpenter, S.R., Dahm, C.N., McKnight, D.M., Naiman, R.J., Postel, S.L., 642Running, S.W., 2001 Water in a Changing World Issues in Ecology, 2-16 643Keiter, R.B., 2001-2002 Biodiversity Conservation and the Intermixed Ownership 644Problem: From Nature Reserves to Collaborative Processes Idaho Law Review 38, 64524 646Kolinjivadi, V., Adamowski, J., Kosoy, N., 2014 Recasting payments for ecosystem 647services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach 648Ecosystem Services 10, 144-154 649Landell-Mills, N., Porras, I.T., 2002 Silver bullet or fools' gold? A global review of 650markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor, Instruments 651for sustainable private sector foresty series International Institute for Environment 652and Development, London 653Lin, F., 2014 A Comparative Study on Payment Schemes for Watershed Services in 654New York City and Beijing Consilience: the Journal of Sustainable Development 11, 65527-40 656Love, R., 2001 Daylighting Salt Lake's City Creek: An Urban River Unentombed 657Golden Gate University Law Review 51 30 658MacDonald, K.I., 2010 The Devil is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector 659“Engagement” and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation Antipode 42, 660513-550 661McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., 2004 Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism 662Geoforum 35, 275-283 663Muradian, R., Rival, L., 2012 Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of 664governing ecosystem services Ecosystem Services 1, 93-100 665Niermeyer, J., 2013 Legacy of Watershed Protection 666NRC, 2000 Watershed Managment for Potable Water Supply: Assessing New York 667City's Approach National Academy Press, Washington, D.C 668O'Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P., Schjolden, A., 2007 Why different 669interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses Climate Policy 6707, 73-88 671Pirard, R., 2012 Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: 672A lexicon Environmental Science & Policy 19-20, 59-68 673Postel, S.L., Thompson, B.H., 2005 Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of 674nature's water supply services Natural Resources Forum 29, 98-108 675Roe, E.M., 1991 Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint 676development World Development 19, 287-300 677Sagoff, M., 1988 The Economy of the Earth Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 678Sagoff, M., 2002 On the Value of Natural Ecosystems: The Catskills Parable Politics 679and the Life Sciences 21, 16-21 680Sandbrook, C., Scales, I.R., Vira, B., Adams, W.M., 2011 Value plurality among 681conservation professionals Conservation Biology 25, 285-294 682Sandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J.A., Vira, B., 2013 What conservationists think about 683markets? Geoforum 50, 232-240 684Sandel, M., 2012 What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets Penguin 685Books, London 686Shepherd, H., 2011 Implementing the Human Right to Water in the Colorado River 687Basin Willamette Law Review 47, 425-673 688Teske, P., 2004 Regulation in the States Brookings Institution Press, Washington, 689D.C 690USFS, 2003 Revised Forest Plan Wasatch-Cache National Forest United States 691Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Wasatch-Cache 692National Forest 693Vira, B., Elliott, L.C., Fortnam, M., Wilks, S., 2011 Response Options, UK National 694Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, pp 1311-1432 695Westman, W.E., 1977 How Much Are Nature's Services Worth? Science 197, 960696964 697Wilkinson, J., 2004 The New Competing Uses: Balancing Recreation with 698Preservation in Utah's Wasatch Mountains The Journal of Energy Law & Policy 24, 699561-613 700Wilson, E.O., 2002 What is Nature Worth? Wilson Quarterly, 20-39 701 52 31 702 53 32 ... 662Geoforum 35, 275-283 663Muradian, R., Rival, L., 2012 Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of 664governing ecosystem services Ecosystem Services 1, 93-100 665Niermeyer, J., 2013 Legacy of... in any of these portals, nor on more overtly 185market-focused conservation and ecosystem- services oriented websites, such as 186ecosystemmarketplace.com or TEEBweb.org Within the grey literature,... for the ecosystem services they provide, and provides 203insights into the outcomes of an alternative set of policies developed for the 204management of watersheds for their ecosystem services