BD assessment proposal for data/assessment visualization tool - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BD assessment proposal for data/assessment visualization tool

Georg Martin & Kaire Torn

Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu

Indicator data:

Indicator Spatial Unit Descriptor/ Criteria Ecosystem component

Indicator 1 Gulf of Finland D1C1 Mammal Indicator 1 Gulf of Riga D1C5 Bird Indicator 2 Gulf of Finland D4C1 Coastal fish

BEAT 3.0

R-script, developed by NIVA (hosted by HELCOM?)

Output

Biodiversity assessment

Input Input Visualisation tool

Online visualisation of indicator results and biodiversity assessment result Developed and hosted by EMI

Schematic presentation of BD assessment workspace

Indicator data:

Indicator Spatial Unit Descriptor/ Criteria Ecosystem component

Indicator 1 Gulf of Finland D1C1 Mammal Indicator 1 Gulf of Riga D1C5 Bird Indicator 2 Gulf of Finland D4C1 Coastal fish

Indicator data:

Indicator Spatial Unit Descriptor/ Criteria Ecosystem component

Indicator 1 Gulf of Finland D1C1 Mammal Indicator 1 Gulf of Riga D1C5 Bird Indicator 2 Gulf of Finland D4C1 Coastal fish Input

Biodiversity assessment Biodiversity assessment

Example of output table: Beat

Why do we need visualization tool ?

Both input and output of BEAT Tool cosists of large amount of data – difficult to grasp and handle. Visualization Tool simplifies the input and output information for further:

• Analysis
• Aggregation of information
• Presentation
• Reporting

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

0.7

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

0.7

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

0.7

1.1 Species distribution Score: 1 Indicators: 2

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

0.7

1.2 Population size Score: 0.8 Indicators: 3

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

0.7

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

1.1 Species distribution Score: 0.5 Indicators: 2

Presentration options

• by indicator type

– Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators

• by spatial assessment unit

– 4 levels

• by criteria

– 13 criteria

• by ecosystem component

– 5 levels

Presentration options

• by indicator type

– Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators

• by spatial assessment unit

– 4 levels

• by criteria

– 13 criteria

• by ecosystem component

– 5 levels

Presentration options

• by indicator type

– Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators

• by spatial assessment unit

– 4 levels

• by criteria

– 13 criteria

• by ecosystem component

– 5 levels

Spatial assesment units

Assessment in 4 levels, visualization in 2 levels:

1) Baltic Sea

1. Baltic Sea

2) HELCOM sub-basins

1. Kattegat 2. Great Belt 3. The Sound 4. Kiel Bay 5. Bay of Mecklenburg 6. Arkona Basin 7. Bornholm Basin 8. Gdansk Basin 9. Eastern Gotland Basin 10. Western Gotland Basin 11. Gulf of Riga 12. Northern Baltic Proper 13. Gulf of Finland 14. Åland Sea 15. Bothnian Sea 16. The Quark 17. Bothnian Bay

3) HELCOM coastal areas and open sea (59 units) 4) National water types? (? units)

Presentration options

• by indicator type

– Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators

• by spatial assessment unit

– 4 levels

• by criteria

– 13 criteria

• by ecosystem component

– 5 levels

1.1 Species distribution 1.2 Population size 1.3 Population condition 1.4 Habitata distribution 1.5 Habitat extent 1.6 Habitat condition 1.7 Ecosystem structure 3.2 Reproductive capacity of the stock 4.1 Productivity of key species 4.2 Proportion of selected species 4.3 Abundance /distribution of key species 6.1 Physical damage on substrate 6.2 Condition of benthic community

BD related MSFD criteria

Presentration options

• by indicator type

– Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators

• by spatial assessment unit

– 4 levels

• by criteria

– 13 criteria

• by ecosystem component

– 5 levels

Ecosystem components

Assessment in 5 levels, visualization in 3 levels:

1) Biodiversity

1. Biodiversity

2) Ecosystem component

1. Mammals 2. Fish 3. Birds 4. Benthic habitat 5. Pelagic habitat

3) Species groups

1. Small toothed cetaceans 2. Seals 3. Grazing birds 4. Surface-feeding birds 5. Benthic-feeding birds 6. Wading birds 7. Pelagic feeding birds 8. Coastal fish 9. Pelagic shelf fish 10. Demersal shelf fish 11. Macroalgae 12. Angiosperms 13. Benthic fauna 14. Zooplankton 15. Phytoplankton

4) Species (42 units) 5) Different seal indicators? (9 units)

Assessment unit: Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

0.7

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Confidence by criteria

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessement by criteria

Number of indicators used: 28

X X

Temporal coverage

I

H

Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

I

H L

Assessment unit: Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on ecosystem component level

Confidence by ecosystem component

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessment by Ecosystem component

Number of indicators used: 28

Temporal coverage Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

0.7

I I

I

H H

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators

Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score species group level

Confidence by species groups

L – low, I – intermediate, H – high

Assessment by Species groups

Number of indicators used: 28

Temporal coverage Spatial representability Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence

0.7

I

H

I

H

XX

I

L

XX

I

I

Assessment report – one page summary

Open questions, unsolved problems

• Prototype of BEAT Tool was not available for

testing

• Final list of criteria, ecosystem components, units

should be agreed?

• Aggregation/presentation of confidence aspects -

?

• Classes of confidence and classification rules
• Naming:

– EQR – Clear definition of indicator types (e.g. Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators)