Ecosystems accounts and the spatial dimension in integrated assessments 18-19 May expert meeting...

Ecosystems accountsand the spatial dimension in integrated assessments

18-19 May expert meeting

Jean-Louis Weber

EEA

SEEA2003: expansion of the System of National Accounts (UN1993) in order to include more environmental aspects

Natural resources EcosystemsEconomic

assets (SNA)Non-economic

assets

Openingstocks

Openingstocks

OpeningState

SNAtransactions

and otherflows

Changes instocks

Changesin stocks

Economicactivities,

naturalprocesses,

etc.

Changesin state

Closingstocks

Closingstocks

Closingstate

Described in SNA

RM HASSAN - UN The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (UN 2003) - RANESA Workshop June 12-16, 2005 Maputo

Environmental accounts: 5 key policy questions

1. Cost of environmental protection the “burden” issue– Cost for public budgets: financing of protection (incl. administration and research)– Cost for companies: effects on economic competitiveness

2. Environmental performance of the economy the “decoupling” issue – Compliance to national emission standards, respect of international conventions– Distances to targets, economic and technological options– Use of scarce resource– Sustainability of consumption patterns

3. Cost of insufficient environmental protection the “externalities” issue– Depletion of renewable resources (forest, fisheries, water…)– Degradation of natural assets (forests, fisheries, soil, water, ecosystems…)– Impacts on human health and well being– Costs of remediation (instead of protection…)

4. Assessment of policies the “effectiveness/efficiency” issue– Efficiency/effectiveness of environmental policies and instruments– Efficiency/effectiveness of environmental sector policies (agriculture, transport…)– Environmental impact assessment of social and economic policies – Incorporation of environmental concerns in the multiple levels of public and private decision-making

(participation, awareness, corporate accounting) Reserves (ownership, access, operation)

5. Conservation of comparative advantages the “natural capital” issue– Reserves (ownership, access, operation)– Economic rents on natural resources (depletion…)– Viability of living/cycling natural capital, continuity of ecosystem services– Adaptability to change (global market, climate change, technology)

In Europe• Eurostat is producing environmental accounts (with a focus on the economic

side, close links to National Accounts…)

• … in cooperation with the EEA (land cover/land use, water systems, ecosystems)

Land & Ecosystem Accounts (LEAC)

• Part of the SEEA 2003 (Integrated System of Environmental and Economic Accounting)

• Accounts in monetary AND in physical units

• Tested in Europe by UNECE, Eurostat and EEA (France, UK, Germany, European coast, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania)

• EU-wide implementation of land cover accounts with CLC2000 in 2004

Why accounting for ecosystems is important?

• Key policy issues– Biodiversity conservation

– Sustainable use of living/ cycling resource (natural and managed systems) and land

– Adaptability to climate change

• Recent developments & research: – SEEA2003 – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:

• “Natural Assets and Human Well-being”• “ecosystem services”: provisioning (goods), regulating, support, cultural

– IUCN / VALUE project (“Counting ecosystems as water infrastructure”…) – Ecological economics in general (ISEE…)– GEOSS– and more...

LEAC: what has been done?

• Land cover accounts based on:– CLC 1990-2000– LaCoast 1975-1990– 4 PHARE countries 1975-1990

These data are available on CIRCA & prototype for EEA data service

LEAC: what is available?

• CLC layers (vectors, raster 100 & 250 m)http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/available.asp?type=azlist&letter=C

• LEAC layers (land cover flows, Land Analytical and Reporting units, Corilis layers, Dominant landscape types, Green Background Landscape map…) – 1 km grid

• LEAC tables: 2 options LEAC Query tool and LEAC Olap Cube

• Tools for analysishttp://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/leac/library

& soon in the EEA dataservice

Details in to-morrow’s session

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/available.asp?type=azlist&letter=C

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/available.asp?type=azlist&letter=C

http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/leac/library

Accounting ?

A - DOES GAINS COMPENSATE LOSSES? (QUANTITIES, COMPOSITION)

B - WHICH ARE THE PROCESSES IN QUESTION? (FLOWS, LAND USE)

C - DOES QUALITY OF STOCK CARRY OVER CHANGE? (STATE, HEALTH)

Land cover change accounts:

from maps to statistics

CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN LAND COVER CHANGES (CLC LEVEL 3) AND THE LAND COVER FLOWS

132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223

Dump sites Construction

sites Green urban

areas

Sport and leisure

facilities

Non-irrigated arable land

Permanently irrigated land

Rice fields Vineyards Fruit trees and berry

plantations Olive groves

243 Land principally occupied by agriculture w ith significant areas of natural vegetation

Extension of dumpsites

ConstructionDevelopment of green urban areas

Extension of sport and leisure facilities

Intensive conversion of marginal land to agriculture






244 Agro-forestry areasExtension of dumpsites



Intensif ication of agriculture



Planting of vineyards, fruit and olive trees over arable & pasture



311 Broad-leaved forestExtension of dumpsites



Intensive conversion of forest to agriculture






312 Coniferous forestExtension of dumpsites









313 Mixed forestExtension of dumpsites









321 Natural grasslandExtension of dumpsites









322 Moors and heathlandExtension of dumpsites









LCF1 Urban land management

LCF2 Urban residential sprawl

LCF3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures

LCF4 Agriculture internal conversions

LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture

LCF6 Withdrawal of farming

LCF7 Forests creation and management

LCF8 Water bodies creation and management

LCF9 Changes due to natural & multiple causes

Land cover 1990 & 2000 and land cover change are first converted to a grid

(below, 3x3 km)

Individual changes are grouped by land cover flows that describe

processes

Main annual conversions between agriculture and forests/ dry semi-natural land in ha/year

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Withdrawal of farming withoutsignificant woodland creation

Withdrawal of farming with woodlandcreation

Conversion from wetlands toagriculture

Conversion from dry semi-natural &natural land to agriculture

Conversion from forest to agriculture

Satellite image (Image 2000)

CORINE Land Cover

European Reference Grid 1x1 Km

Discontinuous urban fabric

Industrial or commercial units

Coniferous forest

Sclerophyllous vegetation

Water courses71

142

7 6

K1000 E3666 N2073

Total surface: 100 Ha

Land cover accounts are produced for 1 km² grid cells

Each grid cell is given attributes such as Country, administrative region, river basin, coastal zones, bio-geographical region, river basin, landscape type, which facilitates queries and reporting

e.g. land uptake by artificial development, NUTS2/3, deviation of the European average, mean annual values

ESPON HYPERATLAS - MULTISCALAR TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS

Back to maps: e.g. Urban sprawl in the province of Venice, 1990-2000, cells of 1 km² - - wetlands in the background

Legend

Land uptake by urban

Value

0 - 2

2 - 5

5 - 100

Inland marshes

Peat bogs

Salt marshes

Salines

Intertidal flats

Water courses

Water bodies

Coastal lagoons

Estuaries

Wetlands

Net Change in Land Cover % of initial year

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Artificial surfaces

Arable land &permanent cropsPastures & mixedfarmlandForests and transitionalwoodlandNatural grassland &semi-natural vegetationOpen spaces with littleor no vegetationWetlands

Water bodies

Despite possible threats from sea level rise and the permanent ecological problems of the lagoon due to agriculture eutrophicating surpluses, urban and infrastructures development has continued in the province of Venice.

Sprawl of artificial areas

Urban and infrastructure land development "1990" - 2000 - EUR23 - ha/year

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Land uptake byhousing, services

and recreation

Land uptake byindustrial &

commercial sites

Land uptake bytransport netw orks &

inf rastructures

Land uptake bymines, quarries and

w aste dumpsites

Origin of artificial land uptake as % of total, "1990"- 2000, EUR23

6%9%

36%

48%

1%Arable land & permanentcrops

Pastures & mixed farmland

Forests and transitionalwoodland shrub

Natural grassland, heathland,sclerophylous vegetation

Open spaces with little or novegetation

Wetlands

Water bodies

Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take as % of Artificial land cover "1990"

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take as % of total Europe-23 urban land take

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Change in agriculture

Main annual flows of conversion between agriculture and forests/ dry semi-natural land in ha/year, "1990"- 2000, EUR23

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Withdrawal of farming withoutsignificant woodland creation

Withdrawal of farming withwoodland creation

Conversion from wetlands toagriculture

Conversion from dry semi-natural &natural land to agriculture

Conversion from forest toagriculture

Net conversion between pasture (+) and arable land/ permanent crops (-)

ha/year, "1990"-2000, EUR23

at

be

bg

cz

de

dk

ee es

fr

gr

hu

ie

it

lt

lu

lv nl pl pt

ro si sk uk

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Conversions between agriculture, forest and natural land, ha/year, as % of country area, "1990"- 2000

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12Withdraw al of farmingw ithout signif icantw oodland creation

Withdraw al of farmingw ith w oodlandcreation

Conversion f romw etlands to agriculture

Conversion f rom drysemi-natural & naturalland to agriculture

Conversion f rom forestto agriculture

Main annual flows of agricultural internal conversions in ha/year, "1990"- 2000, EUR23

85000 90000 95000 100000 105000

Conversion frompasture to arableand permanentcrops

Extension of setaside fallow landand pasture

The new step: from land cover to ecosystem accounting

• ecosystem stocks, flows & resilience• land use functions, ecosystem goods & services

and ultimately the Natural Capital (next year…)

Contents of ecosystem accounts

• Objects & components• Ecosystems interactions• Services• Pressure on ecosystems

• Objects & components– Spatial objects (land cover surface, length, volume, number of

occurrences)– Biomass, NPP/NEP, C, energy– N, P– Water– Species – Other

Basic accounts of inventories and flows

• Ecosystems interactions & resilience• Services• Pressure on ecosystems

• Components• Systems interactions & resilience

– Spatial interactions (ecotones, distributions, composition / scales)

– Components interactions• Temporal interactions (water stress, species dynamics…)

• Bio-chemical-physical cycles

– Functioning, distress, resilience

Counts of integrity/diversity - resilience• Ecosystem Goods & Services• Pressure on ecosystems

• Objects & components• Systems interactions & resilience• Ecosystem Goods & Services

– End services to population (collective or individual)– Ecosystem input to production (marketed or not)– Maintenance of the global system (of the natural capital)

Land use accounts (services) and Material flows accounts

• Pressure on ecosystems

• Objects & components• Systems interactions & resilience• Services• Pressure on ecosystems

– re-structuring, – over-harvesting/over-extraction, – deposition of residuals and force-feeding, – introduction of species

Land use accounts (stressors)

CORE LAND COVER ACCOUNT

Soil

Flora & Fauna

Water system

Atmosphere/ Climate

ECOSYSTEM & LAND USE ACCOUNTS

Land use economic &

social functions

Artificiality of land

Intensityof use

Ecosystem services

Ecosystempotentials

Integrity, health & viability

Vulnerability

Production & Consumption

Natural Assets

Population

Infrastructures & Technologies

Land based ecosystem accounting

Framework of Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounts

Natural assets accounts • Natural capital structure, resilience & wealth (physical

units, by sectors)• Capital consumption & accumulation (physical units, €)• Ecosystem assets wealth (€)

Natural Capital Accounts/ living & cycling natural capital

Functions & Services• Land use function• Natural function

Supply & use of ecosystem goods and services(Use of resource by sectors, supply to consumption &

residuals, accumulation, I-O analysis)

Material/energy flows(focus on biomass, water,

nutrients, residuals)

Accounts of flows of ecosystem goods and services

Counts of stocks diversity / integrity(by ecosystem types,

focus on quality)

Ecosystem Stocks & State Accounts

Ecosystem State (health diagnosis and

wealth calculation)

Core accounts of stocks & flows

(by ecosystem types, raw quantities)

Eco

syst

em t

ypes

Economic sectorsSpatial integration

Economic integration

Differences in accounting for economic and ecological systems

• In economy: + > – = gains = increase in wealth – > + = losses = decrease in wealth aggregated results are defined as the sum of elementary flows

over a fixed period (year or quarter) at the national or regional levels

economic factors are generally substitutable average values make sense in most cases

• In ecology: specific ecosystem dimensions need to be reflected…

Basic accounts of stocks and flows by ecosystem types

• Terrestrial ecosystems:– land cover (km², number of land units)– rivers (standard-river-km, number of reaches)– small features (number of units)

• Marine ecosystem (km²)• Biomass (dry matter, C, energy…)

– soil biomass– vegetation (non soil)– fauna

• Water quantity (m3)• Nitrogen, Phosphorus (t)

Biomass & NPP

• Anomalies, distress symptom• Direct Material Consumption – Total Material Requirement (Material

Flows Accounts) • HANPP• ‘Supporting service’

Example of accounting table for Biomass/C (provisional) 1

Asset account of biomass (dry matter or C)

clc1 Urban

clc2 Agriculture

clc3 Forest & natural dry land

clc4 Wetlands

clc5 Water bodies

Rivers class 1

Rivers class 2

Rivers class 3

Coastal type 1

Coastal type 2

1 Opening stock of biomass (T0)1.1 Aboveground1.2 Belowground1.3 Soils

1.4 Water

2 Net Primary Production (Effective= GPP-Plants respiration)3 Soil respiration (-)4 Net Ecosystem Production (=2-3)5 Imports (+)6 Extraction/harvesting (-)

6.1 Sustainable use6.2 Depletion6A from annual crops6B from natural increase of inventories6C from wild harvest

X Consumption in trophic chains (-)Y Net secondary production

7 Residuals (+)7.1 harvesting residues

animal excreta7.2 land filled7.3 to water

to the amosphere

8 Exports (-)9 Other change in volume of biomass (+ or -)

9.1 due to land use change9.2 due to eutrophication9.3 due to soil alteration

9.3.1 soil formation9.3.2 change in C storage

9.4 fires9.5 climatic events

other change n.c.a.

10 Net accumulation (storage) (+ or -)10.1 Aboveground10.2 Belowground10.3 Soils10.4 Water

11 Closing stock of biomass (T1)11.1 Aboveground11.2 Belowground11.3 Soils11.4 Water

Indicator calculation2 Effective NPP12 + or - Alteration of NPP by land use (historical)13 = Potential NPP (+)

HANPP = 13-6+5-8

Geographical system (administrative regions, functional areas, river catchment…) ATerrestrial ecosystems Inland water ecosystems Marine ecosystems

TOTAL

Example of accounting table (provisional) 2

Resource Use and Supply to the economy

clc1 Urban

clc2 Agriculture

clc3 Forest & natural dry land

clc4 Wetlands

clc5 Water bodies

Rivers class 1

Rivers class 2

Rivers class 3

Coastal type 1

Coastal type 2

U1 Total extraction/harvesting

Agriculture

Fisheries

Forestry

Energy

Mining

Manufacturing

Distribution water

Sewerage/ waste management

Government

Household

Resource from sectors for use

Residuals received

U3 Resource received from outside (ROW or other regions)

Gross resource used = U1+U2+U3S1 Supply to branches/sectors & ROW

Resource supplied to other users

Residuals sent to waste management

S2 Supply to outside (ROW or other regions)S3 Residuals & returnsHarvesting residuesAnimal excretaLand filled wastesResiduals to waterS4 Final consumptionHuman foodAnimal foodEnergy production

Total supply = S1+S2+S3

from

the

eni

ronm

ent

with

in th

e ec

onom

y

U2 Resource received from branches/sectors

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t

Geographical system (administrative regions, functional areas, river catchment…) ATerrestrial ecosystems Inland water ecosystems Marine ecosystems

TOTAL

Example of accounting table (provisional) 3

Flows within the economy

Ag

ricu

lture

Fis

her

ies

Fo

rest

ry

En

erg

y

Min

ing

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Dis

trib

utio

n w

ater

Se

wer

age

/ w

aste

m

anag

em

ent

Gov

ernm

ent

Hou

seho

ld

Res

t o

f th

e W

orld

/ ot

her

regi

ons Total

supply to sectors and ROW (S1+S2)

Agriculture

Fisheries

Forestry

Energy

Mining

Manufacturing

Distribution water

Sewerage/ waste management

Government

Household

Rest of the World/other regions

Total resource received (U2+U3)

N cycle account

• N deposition/ grasslands• Leaching• Eutrophication/ rivers, wetlands, grasslands• Acidification

© the Regents of the University of Michigan

Ecosystem health: counts of diversity/integrity

• Specific diagnosisFrom selection of markers and threshold values according to habitat types, region, context1. Homeostasis state (no alteration foreseen).2. Resilience state (the disturbance that ecosystems are still able to absorb or

compensate, keeping the same functions, identity and feedbacks (Walker, 2005).3. Reversible process without compensation (degradation).4. Irreversible change (death).

• Ecosystem Distress Syndrome model:– Disruptions of nutrients cycling (loss or excess)– Degradation of substrates (fragmentation, water stress, chemical stress)– Change in species composition (invasive…)– Dependence of systems from artificial input (energy, water, subsidies …)

• Focussed research of stressors– overharvesting, overuse

– land/rivers restructuring

– deposition of residuals

– introduction of species

• Physical wealth as stocks*coefficients (potential, resilience)

The final diagnosis

1. Homeostasis state (no alteration foreseen).2. Resilience state (the disturbance that ecosystems are

still able to absorb or compensate, keeping the same functions, identity and feedbacks (Walker, 2005).

3. Reversible process without compensation (degradation).4. Irreversible change (death).

Physical wealth as stocks*coefficient (potential, resilience)

Investigation of stress & stressors (sectors)– Overharvesting

– land/rivers restructuring

– deposition of residuals

– introduction of species

Ecosystem services

Ref to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:

ref. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 2

Land use functions and ecosystem services

Support services Basic accounts & MFA Provisioning services: goods (food, fiber, wood,

fuel…) and services that can be “consumed” in given quantities Supply & use tables by sectors

Cultural services Indirect measurement (beneficiaries)

Regulating services collective, direct measurement maybe difficult, indirect measurement (beneficiaries, risk assessment/insurance, natural capital/potentials)

ecosystem services defined according to natural and land use functions

Implementation…

• Analytical & reporting units• What can we measure?• Data availability and constraints• Spatial and time scales• Detection of trends, ranges & threshold values• Assimilation of data/ the grid

Analytical and reporting units• Field samples• Habitats/ N2000…• Corine units• Landscape analytical units

– Corine classes (statistical) – Dominant land cover/landscape types (Corilis)– Ecological networks (Corilis, PEEN, networks of networks)– Coastal zones/ functional units– Core areas of nature protection (Naturilis)– Large ecosystems/ eco-complexes (e.g. danube Delta, Doñana…)– HNV, rural landscape units (mosaic agriculture)– Small hydrological units

• Reporting/synthesis units– Countries, regions (NUTS) – Coastal zones/ units, sectors– Bio-geographical regions– Accounting river basins (~10 000 to 20 000 km²)– River basin districts (WFD)

Scales: individual ecosystems v.s. geo-statistical monitoring/ accounting

WETLANDS 1990 OF N-W EUROPE EEA/ETCTE

To ta l a re a : 5 .8 0 0 sq .km

Legend

Restoration areas: 15,025 ha

Agriculture: 39,974 haFishculture: 35,967 ha

Forestry: 6,442 ha

POLDERS: 97,408 haNATURAL AREAS: 482,592 ha

TULCEA

Ukraine

(courtesy Danube Delta National Institute)

Scales: networks of ecological networks interact with artificial infrastructures

Core natural areas

Protected natural areas

Landscape mosaics, stepping stones

Linear corridor (river)

Road

Dam

Integration of spatial data sets on land & water issues

EO Images Corine LC

LC Changes

Texture Stratification

Connectivity Natura 2000

MonitoringStatisticsEmission /surplus

Land accountsCORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN LAND COVER CHANGES (CLC LEVEL 3) AND THE LAND COVER FLOWS

132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223

Dump sites Construction

sites Green urban

areas

Sport and leisure

facilities

Non-irrigated arable land

Permanently irrigated land

Rice fields Vineyards Fruit trees and berry

plantations Olive groves

243 Land principally occupied by agriculture with significant areas of natural vegetation

Extension of dumpsites









244 Agro-forestry areasExtension of dumpsites









311 Broad-leaved forestExtension of dumpsites









312 Coniferous forestExtension of dumpsites









313 Mixed forestExtension of dumpsites









321 Natural grasslandExtension of dumpsites









322 Moors and heathlandExtension of dumpsites









Infrastructures

Apportionment

Data sources

• CLC1990+2000 (and 1975 when available)• Rivers (CCM, national db)• CORILIS (stratifications, connectivity)• Texture (satellite images segmentation)• Small objects/ edges (CLC masks & pixels classification)• Meteo• Water (monitoring, water accounts)• NPP / fAPAR• Soil biomass / C• N, P, deposition, eutrophication• Species, habitats: from N2000, Atlases, other inventories

From monitoring land cover change to assessing ecological impacts of socio-economic development

• Working with heterogeneous datasets: probabilities, fuzzy logic, stratifications

• Ecosystem assessment: ecological time and spatial length scales, non-linear relations, feedbacks, resilience, threshold values

• Eco-toxicology, human toxicology: big progress (genomic approach), need moving to operational monitoring

• Ecological economics: ecosystem goods & services, natural capital, environmental liabilities…

• The social & cultural dimensions: owners and actors• Modelling: EEA integrated datasets at the meso-scale

are an input to new research

From land cover to ecosystem accounting

• Upscaling/downscaling• Sampling/processing heterogeneous data• System of stratifications (correlation of fuzzy

sets, probability maps)• Threshold values, diagnosis…

The data issue• Best use of Earth observation data (A):

– Land cover, but not only land cover– Texture & Structure (infra CLC)– Humidity (incl. time dimension, variability)– NPP (incl. time dimension, variability)

• Best use of existing (imperfect) monitoring & statistics (B): – N2000: non-representative (biased) sample– Fauna/flora atlases: 50x50 km grid– Other inventories of fauna flora and habitats– Socio-economic data: a few at the local level, mostly national/regional

Solution: assimilation of data(re) sampling (B) with (A)Spatial modelling, multi-scales analysis (e.g. NPP by CLC types), fuzzy setsAccounting frameworks (Input-output analysis, cross-checking of data, stocks

& flows…)

Integration of space monitoring into ecosystem accounting: land cover change x NPP x structure/texture x short time variability x stratification of in situ monitoring (biodiversity, water…)

Vegetation productivity, seasonal change (MERIS/JRC-IES)

Fires Droughts (SPOT4-Vegetation/ CNES – Vito)

Fo

rest

str

uct

ure

(M

OD

IS-M

ult

i-an

gle

/JR

C-I

ES

)

Texture, parcelisation changes 1988 – 1998 (Landsat/JRC-IES)

http://www-gvm.jrc.it/stars/fapar.htm

http://www.vgt.vito.be/AShtml/c85_05092003_Secheresse.htm

Data assimilation/ the grid approach

• Making data (more) comparable• If necessary, shift from crisp boundaries of land units to

fuzzy analysis of their importance in their neighbourhood (smoothing techniques);

• Data associated with the probability of finding them in a given grid-cell

Example: Relation city & rural/natural landscape: crisp vs. fuzzy map

the second map gives immediately a measure and a vision of the influence of rural/natural landscapes; the town centre remains red…

Lyon, FranceCLC2000-Artificial area (left) vs. Urban temperature of the Urban Morphological Zone combined with Agriculture/Forest context (Corilis2000, 5 km)

Another example: potential pressure from cities (large and small) on protected areas – the urban temperature methodology

• Pressure on nature doesn’t come only from land use change but as much (or more) from existing “stocks” of land use/ land cover

• Potential pressure from existing land use/ land cover is proportional to the size of the source and to its proximity

• Note: several small sources can generate a substantial or even big impact altogether, even though they could be neglected individually

• Neighbourhood analysis can inform on the “temperature” or “radiation” or “diffusion” of a given source over designated areas

• CORILIS, based on Corine land cover, allows calculating indices such as the urban “temperature” on N2000 sites

Urban areas and N2000 sites

Processing urban areas in a grid…

Smoothing CLC values, accounting for urban surface inside each cell + within a radius of 5 km (values of urban surface decreasing with the square of the distance to the centre of the grid cell)

Urban “temperature” or “radiation” over N2000 (habitats) sites

Note that not all the “temperature” is coming from large cities (here, agglomerations of pop>50 000 hab are in purple)

An index of “temperature” can be computed. Here, the MEAN values per site (for a radius of 5 km) are presented

Legend

l_111hd_c1

5km.MEAN Value

0 - 2

3 - 6

7 - 12

13 - 22

23 - 62

Border

From an index to indicators

• This index can be the basis of the calculation of indicators; threshold values need to be defined by experts

• The neighbourhood can be defined for purpose, e.g. 3, 10 or 20 km instead of 5 km

• The index can be computed for intensive agriculture or any other CLC class (e.g. forest)

• Indexes can be added or subtracted for assessing cumulative effects (e.g. Urban + Agriculture) or compensations (e.g. Urban – Agriculture or Urban – Forest)

• Land cover change can be combined to the index

Urban temperature & Urban land uptake

Legend

l_111hd_c1

5km.MEAN Value

0 - 2

3 - 6

7 - 12

13 - 22

23 - 62

Border

ind_1_landtake.tif

Value

1 - 2

3 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 100

Just the indexes…

Ecosystems accounts and the spatial dimension in integrated assessments 18-19 May expert meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Ecosystems accounts and the spatial dimension in integrated assessments 18-19 May expert meeting...