FrESCOES: Framework Earth FrESCOES: Framework Earth Surface Characteristics Ontology Surface Characteristics Ontology

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 ($)SD ($)

BeachBeach AestheticAesthetic 44 44 14,84714,847 18,06718,067

EstuaryEstuary AestheticAesthetic 44 99 303303 448448

ForestForest RefugiaRefugia 55 88 923923 1,2111,211

ForestForest AestheticAesthetic 99 1414 130130 204204

Fresh wetlandFresh wetland Water supplyWater supply 55 66 1,1611,161 1,1831,183

Fresh wetlandFresh wetland AestheticAesthetic 55 88 1,5711,571 1,6001,600

Open waterOpen water Water supplyWater supply 55 55 409409 235235

Open waterOpen water AestheticAesthetic 99 1414 356356 310310

Riparian bufferRiparian buffer Water supplyWater supply 88 99 1,9211,921 3,7043,704

Riparian bufferRiparian buffer AestheticAesthetic 77 88 1,3701,370 2,1502,150

Salt wetlandSalt wetland AestheticAesthetic 44 44 230230 274274

Growth of ESV studiesGrowth of ESV studies

                                              

        

Ecosystem services articles, ISI Web of Knowledge

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Year

# of Articles

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

Class HierarchyClass Hierarchy