FrESCOES: Framework Earth FrESCOES: Framework Earth Surface Characteristics Surface Characteristics Ontology for Ecosystem Ontology for Ecosystem Services Services Austin Troy, Ken Bagstad, Austin Troy, Ken Bagstad, Shuang Liu, and Matthew Shuang Liu, and Matthew Wilson Wilson Submitted to: Submitted to: Frontiers in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Ecology and the Environment
16
Embed
FrESCOES: Framework Earth Surface Characteristics Ontology for Ecosystem Services Austin Troy, Ken Bagstad, Shuang Liu, and Matthew Wilson Submitted to:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
for Ecosystem Servicesfor Ecosystem ServicesAustin Troy, Ken Bagstad, Shuang Austin Troy, Ken Bagstad, Shuang
Liu, and Matthew WilsonLiu, and Matthew Wilson
Submitted to: Submitted to: Frontiers in Ecology Frontiers in Ecology and the Environmentand the Environment
Key PointsKey Points
Ecosystem service values are increasingly being used in Ecosystem service values are increasingly being used in decision makingdecision making
Information from ecosystem services Information from ecosystem services research is often transferred from a study site to another site where the necessary information for decision making is unavailable; the basis of this transfer is generally the similarity of conventional land cover classes, which were not designed for this purpose.
We outline a new system for characterizing land and aquatic features that is designed to simplify and standardize knowledge transfer in ecosystem service-based management.
OverviewOverview
Ontology (or classification)Ontology (or classification) For ecosystem services For earth surface characteristics In order to share common understanding of the
structure of information Looking to the futureLooking to the future
ES ontology history ES ontology history
Up until recently, ES are intuitively categorized by Up until recently, ES are intuitively categorized by “ecosystem functions” “ecosystem functions”
11stst list in 1970, 9 services including list in 1970, 9 services including pest control, insect pest control, insect pollination, fisheries, climate regulation, soil retention, flood pollination, fisheries, climate regulation, soil retention, flood control, soil formation, cycling of matter, and composition control, soil formation, cycling of matter, and composition
of the atmosphereof the atmosphere (Mooney and Ehrlich 1997) (Mooney and Ehrlich 1997) 1997, Daily’s book 13 services 1997, Daily’s book 13 services
Costanza et al. 17 servicesCostanza et al. 17 services Recently Millennium Assessment 21 services: four Recently Millennium Assessment 21 services: four
groups.groups.
ES framework in MAES framework in MA
Separated supporting service
An operational ontology shouldAn operational ontology should
Build bridges between our current knowledge Build bridges between our current knowledge and ecosystem servicesand ecosystem services
Take into consideration of the transdisiplinary Take into consideration of the transdisiplinary nature of ecosystem service researchnature of ecosystem service research
Facilitate benefit transfer and predictive Facilitate benefit transfer and predictive modeling of ecosystem servicesmodeling of ecosystem services
Lack of common language: Lack of common language: Earth surface characteristicsEarth surface characteristics
““Traditional” LU/LC:Traditional” LU/LC: Anderson (1976) Land Use Classification SystemAnderson (1976) Land Use Classification System Hierarchical systems (e.g., urban >> urban residential >> urban low Hierarchical systems (e.g., urban >> urban residential >> urban low
density residential)density residential) Poorly suited for ecosystem service valuationPoorly suited for ecosystem service valuation Similar problems in FAO LCCS, other USGS/USEPA classification Similar problems in FAO LCCS, other USGS/USEPA classification
schemesschemes
Past global valuation studies: • Costanza et al. 1997 – 11 cover types, nested for coastal, forests, wetlands• Boumans et al. 2002 – 11 cover types
Limitations of value transferLimitations of value transfer
Problems with past global/regional studies relying on value transferProblems with past global/regional studies relying on value transfer Forest Forest forest forest forest forest
Variation in studiesVariation in studies
Land coverLand cover ServiceService
# # studiesstudies
# # datapointsdatapoints Mean ($)Mean ($) SD ($)SD ($)
Base classesBase classesTable 1. Base classes Definition
1. Agriculture Row crops, orchards, or vineyards, accounting for 75% + of cover, not including hay or pasture
2. Forest Tree cover greater than 6m tall on average with canopy accounting for greater than 25% of cover
3. Grassland and herbaceous Areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, including planted hay crops and pasture, accounting for 75%+ of cover
4. Woody perennial/shrubland Low woody vegetation less than 6 m eter tall with canopy accounting for 25%+ of cover except in cases where cover of other li fe forms is less than 25% but shrub cover is greater
5. Permanent open water Areas of near-continuous standing or flowing water where the duration for which water is standing or flowing is sufficient to establish an ordinary high water mark and where emergent vegetation accounts for less than 25% of the cover.
6. Ice and glaciers Areas characterized by year-round surface cover of ice/snow 7. Exposed substrate Sand, dunes, bare rock, bare soil, etc. with less than 25%
vegetative cover 8. Impervious and impacted Areas characterized by greater than 80% impervious surface or
by non-impervious but heavily impacted uses, such as gravel pits or open pit mines
Goals: 1. Based on “top down” characteristics
2. Exhaustive, mutually exclusive, parsimonious3. Definitions modified from National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
ModifiersModifiersTable 2. Sample modifier list for coastal ecosystems Ecological Types Values Definition
1. Coral reef OW Y/N Presence/absence of a coral reef 2. Seagrass OW Y/N Presence/absence of seagrass 3. Aquatic bed OW Y/N Presence/absence of kelp/algal beds 4. Salinity All Salt, brackish, fresh Salinity of surface water or wetlands 5. Wetland A,F,G,WP,ES Y/N Periodic inundation sufficient to establish wetland vegetation and soils 6. Algal bloom presence OW Y/N Presence of algal blooms 7. Pollution levels All L,M,H Levels of air, surface (e.g., debris), surface or groundwater pollution 8. Level 1 mosaic All L,M,H Presence of multiple cover classes at the landscape scale; landscape scale
cover class heterogeneity 9. Structural complexity All L,M,H Diversity of growth forms and strata for terrestrial or aquatic vegetation or
coral reefs 10. Reef global geographic region OW East Atlantic, West Atlantic,
East Pacific, Indo-West Pacif ic Coral reef geographic region
11. Coral bleaching OW None, partial, extensive Severity of coral reef bleaching 12. Species diversity All L,M,H Landscape-scale species diversity relative to other occurrences of the same
cover class 13. Ecosystem area All L,M,H Relative area of the ecosystem providing services 14. Mangrove F,WP Y/N Presence of coastal forests or shrublands dominated by mangrove species 15. Climate zone All Temperate, boreal, tropical,
sub-tropical, Mediterranean Climate zone as determined by seasonality and magnitude of temperatures and precipitation
16. Invasive species dominance All L,M,H Relative abundance of invasive species within the ecosystem Socio-Economic
17. Marquee status/uniqueness All None, low, high recognition Recognition of the site as significant at the regional, national, or global level 18. Urban-rural gradient All Urban, suburban, exurban, rural Settlement pattern of the user population 19. Access status All Full , partial, none Ease of access to human user populations 20. Capital at risk All L,M,H Quantity/value of built , human, and social capital at risk due to disturbance
(e.g., flooding) 21. User population income All L,M,H Relative income level of the user population, which can be for local residents
(e.g., water supply) or non-local (e.g., recreation) 22. Population density All L,M,H Density of human populations within or adjacent to the ecosystem at the
landscape scale 23. Charismatic species All Y/N Presence of species deemed charismatic by local or global human populations 24. Usage for nutrient removal F,G,WP,OW None, low, high Use of an ecosystem for removal of nutrients, typically from water in wetland
or aquatic systems 25. Availabili ty of substitutes All L,M,H Relative number of substitute sites capable of providing a similar flow of
ecosystem services
Proposed solution: Base classes & modifiersProposed solution: Base classes & modifiers
1. Agriculture2. Forest3. Grassland/herbaceous4. Woody perennial/shrubland5. Permanent open water6. Ice and glaciers7. Exposed substrate8. Impervious/impacted
SuperclassesOld-growth
Early/mid-successional
Old-growth
Level 2 modifier
Predicted differences in C sequestration, C storage, N cycling, recreation, aesthetics, watershed services, biodiversity
Non-spotted owl habitat
Spotted owl habitatLevel 3 modifier
Predicted existence value
Subsistence economy
Non-subsistence economy
Predicted differences in value for fuelwood, medicinalplants, food, other NTFPs, etc.
Our visionOur vision
Provide a Realistic basis for Provide a Realistic basis for value transfervalue transfer
Provide more realistic Provide more realistic framework for surface cover framework for surface cover in modeling effortsin modeling efforts
Identify research gapsIdentify research gaps
Contribution and consensus-Contribution and consensus-building from the ESV building from the ESV research communityresearch community
Future workFuture work
For our collaborators: For our collaborators: Collaborative effort using SourceForgeCollaborative effort using SourceForge
Identify important modifiers for your geographic area of Identify important modifiers for your geographic area of interestinterest
Use ontology for modelingUse ontology for modeling Use in future primary valuation studies - will facilitate Use in future primary valuation studies - will facilitate
future value transfer and meta analysisfuture value transfer and meta analysis UVM groupUVM group
Move ESC ontology from Excel to Web Ontology Move ESC ontology from Excel to Web Ontology LanguageLanguage
Develop standard language for other model parameters Develop standard language for other model parameters