Integrating knowledge of ecosystem services into land-use decisions

Dr Daniel RutledgeManaaki Whenua Landcare Research

Presentation to Royal SocietyEcosystem Services Workshop

09 August 2011, Wellington

Ecosystem Services: Issues• Uneven/no consideration in policy, planning, and

resource management, including land-use planning

• Receiving increasing emphasis given concerns over long-term sustainability of human society

• Appealing in concept but challenging to implement in practice, especially when little or nothing is known about them

Key Questions

1. What is the current state of ecosystem services in New Zealand? How have they fared historically?

2. In the future how will changes in land use affect ecosystem services? Conversely how will changes in ecosystem services influence land-use decisions?

3. How can better knowledge about the states and trends of ecosystem services be incorporated into policy, planning and resource management?

Key Questions

1. What is the current state of ecosystem services in New Zealand and how have they fared historically?

2. In the future how will changes in land use affect ecosystem services and, conversely, how will changes in ecosystem services influence land-use decisions?

3. How can better knowledge about the states and trends of ecosystem services be incorporated into policy, planning and resource management?

Important Note

Our values and policies will influence our knowledge of ecosystem services by

influencing what information and data we decide to collect or not to collect.

Ecosystem Services forMultiple Outcomes

• 4-Year MSI-Funded Programme

• 3 Objectives– Current state and recent trends– Future trends– Integration into policy, planning, and resource

management (covered in Suzie Greenhalgh’s talk)

CurrentState

The Approach

Past State

Identifyfuture drivers &

trends

Explore futurepossible states

Characterise past and current states and trends

?Decision Making

Understand past

drivers & trends

Monitor

Influence

Definedesired

state

Discuss & Deliberate

POLICY, PLANNING,AND MANAGEMENT

Characterising State & Trends• Using the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment framework as astarting point

• Taking a tiered approach to ES characterisation to reflect the varying levels of knowledge about differentservices

NZ Ecosystem Services ClassificationPROVISIONING

Products obtained from ecosystems

REGULATINGBenefits from regulation of

ecosystem processes

CULTURALNon-material benefits obtained

from ecosystems

Biochemical, naturalmedicines & pharmaceuticalsFood & FibreFreshwaterFuelGenetic ResourcesOrnamental Resources

Air Quality MaintenanceBiological ControlClimate RegulationErosion ControlHuman Disease RegulationPollinationStorm ProtectionWater PurificationWater Regulation

Aesthetic ValuesCultural Heritage ValuesCultural DiversityEducational ValuesInspirationKnowledge SystemsRecreation & EcotourismSense of PlaceSpiritual & Religious ValuesSocial Relations

SUPPORTINGServices necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services

Nutrient & water cyclingPrimary productionProduction of atmospheric oxygen

Provisioning of habitatSoil formation & retention

Adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)

Tiered Approach to Ecosystem Service Characterisation

TIER I TIER II TIER IIIQualitative Quantitative Quantitative

Simple Trendsor

Knowledge Lacking

Estimate ES based on simple models or relationships with broad ecosystem conditions, e.g., land cover/use

Estimate ES based on process-based models such as erosion models, hydrological models, etc.

Conservation

Urban

Production

Services Land Use

Tenure

Climate

Components Services

Activity

Cover

Soils

or

?

Ecosystem Services AtlasMeat Milk

Wood Wool Sediment Retention

ClimateRegulation

WaterRegulation

Freshwater Provision

Trend Analysis ofGreenhouse Gases 1990-2003

Trend Analysis ofGreenhouse Gases 1990-2003

Exploring Future States

• Approach– Multi-scale spatially-explicit

systems modelling– National extent within a

global context– Fine resolution (1 ha or less)– 100-year time horizon

• Future Drivers & Trends– Population– Climate Change– Energy & Natural Resources– Economic Development– Societal Trends– Technology & Innovation

Land Systems Modelling• Aims to overcome some limitations of typical land-use/

land-cover change modelling– Confounding of land cover and land use– Single cover/use at any one place– Simple characterisations (e.g., dairy, urban, conservation)– Same model for different processes

• Help explore– Triggers and threshold of change– Cumulative effects – positive and negative– Shocks from rare but significant events

• Provide the ability ask more meaningful questions from a policy, planning, and resource management perspective

Example:Estimating Food Production in Urban Areas

Map Land Use Patterns

 Land Use Categories Area in hectares

Site Area 15.5 ( 100%)

Building Roof Area 2.3 ( 15.1%)

Vegetation Cover 2.2 ( 14.6%)

Impervious Pathways 1.3 ( 8.5%)

Roads 1.4 ( 8.9%)

Pedestrian Pathways Impervious 0.64 ( 4.1%)

Productive Land 7.5 ( 48.8%)

Land use categoriesArea in hectares

Site Area 2.8 ( 100%)

Building Roof Area 0.62 ( 22.2%)

Vegetation Cover 0.16 ( 5.7%)

Impervious Pathways 0.57 ( 20.5%)

Roads 0.23 (8.5%)

Pedestrian Pathways Impervious 0.13 (4.7%)

Built impervious 0.1 ( 3.7%)

Productive Land 0.96 (34.7%)GLEN INNES

GRAFTONGRAFTONGhosh, S, Vale. RJD, Vale. BA, (2008) Local Food production in home gardens: measuring onsite sustainability potential of residential development, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 7(4): 430-451.

Study Area: Hamilton

Image: Google Maps (maps.google.co.nz)

Residential

Parks

IndigenousForest

Study Area: Hamilton

(cover not use)

Productive Area CalculationProductive Area by Census Meshblock =

Residential Areas –

Estimated Dwelling Area –

Other Building Area –

Res. “Void” Polygons –

5-m Road Buffer

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Results: Productive

Area

Land Systems Modelling Appraoch

• Advantages– Scalability– Processes operate at their own inherent scales– Able to address multiple outcomes, questions, and

issues (e.g., multiple land use)

• Disadvantages– Data hungry – how feasible is it really?– How much do we know about complexity & dynamics?– What is the appropriate level of characterisation?

Is complex necessarily better than simple?

Integration into Policy, Planning, and Resource Management

• Models and approaches to improve characterisation of ecosystem services

• Tools to explore the consequences of different land-use planning scenarios on ecosystem services (and vice-versa)

More information

www.ecosystemservices.co.nz