WISER Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? James Bullock NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology jmbul@ceh.ac.uk
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Ecosystem services: a complex concept The UKNEA
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? The need for ecosystem service modelling - moving beyond mapping proxies - Link variables measured in the field to ecosystem services & goods - Map ES & G over large regions - Provide information on ES & G in poorly reported regions - Allow future scenarios to be explored - Assess possible outcomes of policy actions - As with all models – provide a test of our understanding of the processes driving ES & G levels
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Issues in modelling ecosystem services Simple models Complex models Less data (type, resolution, frequency, etc) More data Less accurate (predictions, representation, etc) More accurate Less utility (scenario/policy assessment, etc) More utility Greater ease of use (training, software, etc) Lesser ease of use
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Simple ecosystem service model – Co$ting Nature http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature - User can run Co$tingNature online with ease and no need for own data - For anywhere in the world – uses 150+ intrinsic input maps and a spatial model - Focused on certain ecosystem services (carbon, water, hazard mit., tourism) biodiversity metrics. - Provides scenario tools for climate change and land use change - But, limited range of ES and simplistic, proxy-based modelling - Cannot assess uncertainty
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? More complex ecosystem service model – InVEST www.natural capitalproject.org/InVEST.html - GIS-based spatial modelling of ES - Wide range of ES - Range of model complexities and data needs (Tier 0 very simple) - Biophysical & economic value outputs - Can be used with stakeholders to explore scenarios - Poor at dealing with uncertainty
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? InVEST pollination model
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? More complex ecosystem service model – ARIES www.ariesonline.org - Web-based artificial intelligence system that customizes models to user goals - A mapping process for ES provision, use, and flow - 3 elements: provision areas, flow paths, areas of use - Probabilistic models provide likelihood of all possible outcomes (uncertainty) - Adaptable to amount and type of data available & user needs
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? 1 2 3 Example: using poverty, population density, pollution, habitat suitability and harvest data. 1. total demand for subsistence fisheries 2. met demand fraction 3. unmet demand fraction
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Overarching Aim: To identify what constitutes the simplest adequate ecosystem service modelling framework to inform effective policy and management interventions for poverty alleviation at appropriate spatial and temporal scales Obj1: To explore the level of model complexity required to map, in sufficient detail to inform policy, ES of importance to poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa. RQ 1: Which models of ES accurately map the distribution of biophysical stocks of ES of relevance to the poor? RQ2: Are there ES for which particular models perform better than others? RQ3: Are there poverty contexts for which the models perform better (e.g. forests vs drylands, subsistence farming vs. harvesting systems)? RQ4: What are the key gaps in existing data and model capacity needed to model the biophysical stocks of ES that are most relevant for poverty alleviation? Objective 2: To explore the potential and synergies of existing models of ES to make explicit the links between services, benefit flows and wellbeing of the poor. RQ5: Are current models able to capture use of and demand for ES by poor beneficiaries? RQ6: Are there ES for which particular models perform better than others? RQ7: Are there poverty contexts for which the models perform better in terms of capturing use and demand by poor beneficiaries? RQ8: What are the key gaps in existing data and model capacity needed to model the use of and demand for ES by poor beneficiaries?
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Project team Southampton University, UK: Felix Eigenbrod, CEH, UK: James Bullock & Danny Simon Willcock, Terry Dawson, Malcom Hooftman Hudson, Kate Schreckenberg. CSIR, S. Africa: Belinda Reyers & BC3, Spain: Ferdinando Villa & Patrick O’Farrell Elena Pérez-Miñana
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Target Ecosystem Services & Countries Biophysical data Beneficiary data production production availability Pollination availability Pollination Grazing Grazing carbon NTFPs NTFPs Stored Water Water Country Crop Crop Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Malawi Namibia Nigeria Sierra Leone South Africa Tanzania Uganda Zambia
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor?
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Project Partners & Investigators – obtaining data for ES modelling Source Data & location ESPA ASSETS General ES and beneficiaries data for Zomba region of Malawi Center for International NTFP data from 17 African case studies Forestry Research CIAT Soils Research Area Water availability data for Burkina Faso and Ghana Valuing the Arc ES data for the Eastern Arc mountains in Tanzania CHIESA Data on crop yields and food security in Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia Indiana University Household data on rural livelihoods and water use from Kenya and Zambia Malcolm Hudson Rangelands Trust Household data on trends in well-being and benefits from ES in Kenya Charlie Shackleton Household-level NTFP availability and use in S. Africa and other sub-Saharan nations CSIR S. African data
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? e.g. S. African data Water availability Biodiversity Household use of dung & wood Dispersed rural communities for fuel
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Methods to compare models in terms of complexity, data needs & fit to stakeholder needs NB: we are comparing model complexities, not modelling platforms per se - Common units of comparison, by normalising outputs and comparing ranks - Intensity of data requirements; data availability, spatial resolution and uncertainty - Quantify model discrepancies statistically - accuracy in predicting the distributions of ES based on field data - uncertainty, i.e. changes in accuracy with location, service and spatial resolution - sensitivity of model outputs to parameter values - Evaluate the impact of model discrepancies on the usefulness of the model for the decision-making process - including acceptable limits of error for policy contexts
WISER: Which Ecosystem Service Models Best Capture the Needs of the Rural Poor? Work plan - Phase 1 – Stakeholder consultation. Engagement with African and global stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental organisations), to identify their needs for ES models to guide and inform policy and interventions - e.g. what outputs are needed and at what temporal and spatial scales? + obtain data from partners. Months 0-3 - Phase 2 – Biophysical model comparison. Run InVEST, ARIES and Co$ting Nature for biophysical modelling of ES provisioning in target regions and for target ES. Months 3-15 - Phase 3 – Beneficiary model comparison. Create and compare different tiers of models estimating the social aspects of ES provisions, namely access and utilisation. ARIES, InVEST and local S. African models. Months 15-27 - Phase 4 – Dissemination. To stakeholders. Months 27-30
Recommend
More recommend
