Post on 07-Jul-2020
Alternative Ways to Understand and Assessthe Impacts of Atmospheric Pollutants
Jon D. EricksonRubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics • University of Vermont
Colin M. BeierAdirondack Ecological Center
SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry
Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services
Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services
• Evolution of “Ecosystem Services”
• Role of Modeling
• Cases
– Climate Change & Disturbance Regulation
– Human Impact & Recreation Amenities
• ES & NYSERDA
Evolution of Ecosystem Services
Stock-Flow Fund-Servicevs.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Gas regulation
Climate regulation
Disturbance regulation
Water regulation
Water supply
Erosion control and sediment retention
Soil formation
Nutrient cycling
Waste treatment
Pollination
Biological control
Refugia
Food production
Raw materials
Genetic resources
Recreation
Cultural
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Regulation of atmospheric chemical composition.
Regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and other biologically mediatedclimatic processes at global, regional, or local levels. Capacitance, damping and integrity of ecosystem response to environmental fluctuations. Regulation of hydrological flows.
Storage and retention of water.
Retention of soil within an ecosystem.
Soil formation processes.
Storage, internal cycling, processing, and acquisition of nutrients.
Recovery of mobile nutrients and removal or breakdown of excess or xenic nutrients and compounds. Movement of floral gametes.
Trophic-dynamic regulations of populations.
Habitat for resident and transient populations.
That portion of gross primary production extractable as food.
That portion of gross primary production extractable as raw materials.
Sources of unique biological materials and products.
Providing opportunities for recreational activities.
Providing opportunities for non-commercial uses.
From: Costanza, R. R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J. Paruelo, R.V. O'Neill,R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387:253-260
Source: Costanza et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital,”Nature 387: 253-260, 1997.
Millennium
Ecosystem
Assessment
5-10% of the area of five biomes was converted between 1950 and 1990
More than two thirds of the area of two biomes and more than half of the area of four others had been converted by 1990
Net
Pre
sen
t V
alu
e($
/hec
tare
)
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Role of Modeling
Three Levels of Modeling1. Scoping Models
High generality, low resolution, broad participation
by all stakeholder groups.
2. Research ModelsMore detailed and realistic attempts to replicate the dynamics of a particular system of interest, with emphasis on calibration and testing.
3. Management ModelsMedium to high resolution. Emphasis on producing future management scenarios. Can be exercising #1 or #2, or require further elaboration to apply management questions.
IncreasingComplexity,
Cost, Realism,and Precision
Source: Costanza, R. and M. Ruth, “Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope EnvironmentalProblems and Build Consensus,” Environmental Management 22: 183-195, 1998.
A systems framework for ES assessment…
EcosystemProcesses Benefit
Flows
Direct feedbacksto society
ProvisioningRegulatingCultural
ExternalDrivers
ExternalDrivers
Beier et al. (2008) Ecosystems
Beier et al. (2008) Ecosystems
Cases
Climate Change & Disturbance Regulation
(Scoping Model)
Source: Stern review on the economics of climate change, 2006
Picture taken by an automatic camera located at an electrical generating facility on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW) where the Route I-510 bridge crosses the GIWW. This is close to where the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet (MRGO) enters the GIWW. The shot clearly shows the storm surge, estimated to be 18-20 ft. in height..
Past and Projected Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta (1839 to 2020)
NEW ORLEANS
Coastal Louisiana
History of coastal Louisiana wetland gain and loss over the last 6000 years, showing
historical net rates of gain of approximately 3 km2/year over the period from 6000 years ago
until about 100 years ago, followed by a net loss of approximately 65 km2/yr since then.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
-7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
Years Before Present
We
tla
nd
Are
a (
sq
km
) 3 sq km/yr
Net wetland gain
65 sq km/yr
Net wetland loss
Global Storm Tracks 1980 - 2006
Figure 1. Typical hurricane swath showing GDP and wetland area used in the analysis.
TDi e gi
1 wi 2 GDPi
TDi e gi
1 (wi 1) 2 wi 2 GDPi
Predicted total damages from storm i
Avoided cost from a change of 1 ha of coastal wetlands for storm i
The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection
ln (TDi /GDP i)= + 1 ln(gi) + 2ln(wi) + ui (1)
Where:
TDi = total damages from storm i (in constant 2004 $US);
GDPi = Gross Domestic Product in the swath of storm i (in constant 2004 $US). The
swath was considered to be 100 km wide by 100 km inland.
gi = maximum wind speed of storm i (in m/sec)
wi = area of herbaceou s wetlands in the storm swath (in ha).
ui = error
Figure 2. Observed vs. predicted relative damages (TD/GDP) for each of the hurricanes used in the analysis.
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
TD/GDP observed
TD
/GD
P p
red
icte
d
Opal 2005
Jeanne 2004 Andrew 1992
Fran 1996
Katrina 2005
Allen 1980
Hugo 1989
Isabel 2003
Elena 1985
Erin 1995
Bill 2003
Allison 1989
Charley 1998
Isidore2002
Dennis 1999
Alberto 1994
Bob 1991
Gloria 1985
Gaston 2004
Keith 1988
Jerry 1989
Irene 1999
Danny 1997
Chantal 1989
Allison 2001
Floyd 1999
Bret 1999
Emil ly 1993
Alicia 1983
Frances 2004
Lili 2002
Bonnie 1998
Charley 2004
Ivan 2004
R2 = 0.60
• A loss of 1 ha of wetland in the model corresponded to anaverage $33,000 increase in storm damage (median = $5,000)from specific storms.
• Taking into account the annual probability of hits by hurricanesof varying intensities, the annual value of coastal wetlandsranged from $250 to $51,000/ha/yr, with a mean of$8,240/ha/yr (median = $3,230/ha/yr).
• Coastal wetlands in the U.S. were estimated to currently provide$23.2 Billion/yr in storm protection services.
Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, M. L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. J. Anderson, and K. Mulder, “The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection,” Ambio 37:241-248, 2008.
Cases
Human Impact & Recreation Amenities
(Research/Management Model)
Adirondack Park
• 6-million acre state park, established in 1880s.
• No harvesting or timber management on public land.
• Public land managed almost exclusively for wilderness / recreation.
• Matrix of mountains/lakes.
• Interspersed with a population of 131,000 (14 people/sq. mi.)
• Public land managed by NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
• 53 management units.
• Wilderness, Wild Forest, Primitive, Canoe, Intensive Use Areas
Adirondack Forest Preserve
Beier et al. (2008) Ecosystems
Provision Model
Add rasters together, slice into 10 equal-area classes
+ + +
Slice each raster into 20 equal-area classes
Distance to exemplary aquatic
communities
Provision Index
Distance to Megawetlands
Ecosystem Rarity
Distance to State Threatened/Endangered
Animal Habitat
1-10 scale
Blue = High Provision
Red = Low Provision
Provision Index
Use Model
+ +
Use Index
Distance to Roads Distance to Trails Distance to Recreation Points(Lean-tos, Boat Launches, etc.)
Use Index
1-10 scale
Blue = High Use
Red = Low Use
Disturbance Model
+ +
Disturbance Index
+Acid DepositionDistance to
StructuresDistance to Aquatic
Invasives Index of Biotic
Integrity
Disturbance Index
1-10 scale
Blue = Low Disturbance
Red = High Disturbance
Islands
Core Areas
Combining rasters illuminates relationships between provision, use & disturbance
Provision minus Use
Green = High Provision,Low Use
Red = Low Provision,High Use
PCA1
PCA2
3210-1-2-3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Wild Forest
Wilderness/Primitive
William_Whitney West_Canada_Lake
Use
Using index scores to classify management units
PCA1
PCA2
3210-1-2-3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Wild Forest
Wilderness/Primitive
William_Whitney West_Canada_Lake
“Average”
Units
Use
Using index scores to classify management units
PCA1
PCA2
3210-1-2-3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Wild Forest
Wilderness/Primitive
William_Whitney West_Canada_Lake
High Prov.
Low Use
Low Dist.
Use
Using index scores to classify management units
PCA1
PCA2
3210-1-2-3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Wild Forest
Wilderness/Primitive
William_Whitney West_Canada_Lake
Silver_Lake
Siamese_Ponds
Sentinel_Range
Raquette_River
Pigeon_Lake
Pharoah_Lake
Pepperbox
McKenzie_MtJay_Mt
Hoffman_Notch
High_Peaks
Ha_De_Ron_Dah
Giant_Mt
Five_Ponds Dix
Blue_Ridge
Wilmington
Wilcox_Lake
Whitehill
Watson_East_Triangle
Vanderwhacker
Taylor_Pond
Split_RockShaker_Mt
Sargent_PondsSaranac_Lakes
Raquette_Jordan_Boreal
Moose_River_Plains
Lake_George
Jessup_River
Independence_River
Hammond_Pond_West
Hammond_Pond
Grasse_River
Fulton_Chain
Ferris_Lake
Debar_Mt
Cranberry_Lake
Chazy_Highlands
Blue_MtBlack_River
Aldrich_PondWest_Canada_Mt
Wakeley_Mt
Round_Lake
Lake_Champlain_Islands
Hurricane_Mt
Hudson_Gorge
Bog_River
Whiteface_MtSt_Regis
Low Prov.
High Use
High Dist.
Use
Using index scores to classify management units
ES & NYSERDA
Scoping Research Management