Insights and opportunities offered by a
rapid ecosystem services assessment in
promoting a conservation agenda in an
urban biodiversity hotspot
Patrick O’Farrell, Pippin Anderson,
David Le Maitre, Pat Holmes
Why do we map ecosystem services?
Analytical understanding
•
•
•
Understand ecosystem service spatial distribution,
trade-offs, synergies
Direst restoration efforts
Promote multifunctional land use
Methods development
•
Develop methods - up- or downscaling
Policy/Management
•
•
•
Explore alighnment with conservation goals
Generate policy-relevant ecosystem assessments
Provide impact - Assessment to development
Rebecka Malinga 2012
How has this been done?
Popular Assessment tools and approaches
• Natural Capital project – InVEST
• Water World & Costing Nature
• Artificial intelligence for ecosystem services ARIES
• Conservation Planning Tools – Marxan
• Congruence Analysis
What tools has NatCap developed?
InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services and Tradeoffs
Objective:
Enable users to quantify, map & value
the ecosystem service impacts of
alternative land use decisions
Embed in context of clear policy needs
e.g. strategic environmental assessments, land-use
zoning, payments for ecosystem services, marine
spatial plans, offsets
Who are these tools designed for?
InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services and Tradeoffs
Users:
All those affecting or affected by decisions
on land-use & management
• Government
• NGOs
• Multilateral development banks
• Business sector
• Academics
Characteristics of InVEST
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity and multiple services
Biophysical or (first estimate) economic values
Spatially explicit (mapped)
Tiered design: simple or complex
Driven by user specified scenarios
Usable at a range of scales
Free and open source
http://invest.ecoinformatics.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wave Energy
Coastal Vulnerability
Coastal Protection
Marine Fish Aquaculture
Marine Aesthetic Quality
Marine Overlap Analysis Model: Fisheries and Recreation
Marine Habitat Risk Assessment
Terrestrial Biodiversity: Habitat Quality and Rarity
Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Reservoir Hydropower Production
Water Purification: Nutrient Retention
Sediment Retention Model: Avoided Dredging and Water Quality
Regulation
• Manage Timber Production
• Crop Pollination
InVEST Available
Tools
Water World - Policy support tool
Which services have been mapped?
Regulating services
Provisioning services
Carbon storage
Water provision
Timber
Erosion control
Cultural services
Non-timber forest products
Pollination crop
Building materials Recreation Water flow regulation
Tourism
Bushmeat
Flood regulation
Agricultural value Summer cottages
Soil retention
Forage production Deer huntingWater quality
Crop production Nature appreciation
Avalanche protection
Livestock productionScenic beauty
Phosphorus retention
Maple syrup
Genetic storage
Pollination, forest species
Honey
Existence values
Soil organic matter
Rebecka Malinga 2012
Storm peak management
Proxies, variables that have been used
Carbon sequestration: Carbon storage, vegetation type
classification of carbon storage potential, above and below
ground biomass, living and dead, growing or harvested
biomass
Pollination: Value of agricultural crops benefitting from
pollination and presence of natural habitats, presence of
pollinator species, functional traits
Various degrees of modelling
Data from litterature, expert opinion, field surveys…
Urban service assessments
•
•
•
•
Mapping within cities has been limited
European bias – focus on parks & recreation
Trees / biomass and carbon storage
City foot print analysis outside of the city –
vulnerability perspectives
• Conservation - ecosystem services interface
within urban area is novel, within in hotspots no
attention
• Little developing world attention
Cape Town Assessment
Aims of the study
• To assess potential for pursuing ecosystem service
arguments for retaining natural ecosystems
• Use / develop an approach using available data –
rapid assessment
Approach
• 2 Pronged approach
• 1) Land use and land cover change assessment
– Past, present future scenarios modeled
– Available data to id values
– Expert opinion id land class transition service
effects
• 2) Remnant accessibility potential service
contributions
– Point based distance assessment
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Past land use
Present land use
Future land use
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Vegetation types
Vegetation types with services
values/measures / proxies
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Natural vegetation average condition
(Medium)
Natural vegetation poor condition
(Poor)
Cultivated
Forest Plantations
Urban / Built-(up industrial)
Urban / Built-up (Formal housing)
Urban / Built-up (Informal housing)
Urban / Built-up (smallholdings)
Mines & Quarries
Land capability
10
9
8
10
10
0
0
0
10
0
Grazing
10
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flood mitigation
10
9
7
5
9
0
5
3
8
0
Soil retention
10
8
7
7
9
10
9
5
9
0
Critical infiltration
10
8
5
8
9
0
8
5
8
0
Coastal zone protection
10
8
5
2
7
5
3
2
3
0
Groundwater recharge
10
9
7
7
5
2
6
4
6
5
Ground water yield
10
9
7
9
5
2
6
4
9
5
Ground water quality
10
10
10
6
9
4
7
5
5
5
Ecosystem service
Natural vegetation good condition
(High)
Ecosystem services scored for different land-use classes based on expert opinion.
Scores were rated on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 represented no service and 10
the maximum potential service.
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Ecosystem service changes in Cape Town
(provisioning and regulating services)
Land capability
100
Ground water
quality
80
Grazing
60
40
20
Ground water yield
Flood mitigation
Potential
Current
0
Future
Ground water
recharge
Soil retention
Coastal zone
protection
Critical infiltration
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Assessing ecosystem services in the City of Cape Town
Some conclusions
• Provisioning compromised and outsourced
• Regulatory services – in situ relationship, buffering capacity
reduced, flood mitigation and coastal protection compromised
• Cultural dimensions – pronounced loss of services on the
lowlands – opportunities to win win with regulating services
• Arguments for conservation
– value of a multiple services approach (casting the net wide is good)
– Can’t use services to choose conservation areas
• Value of a simple rapid assessment tool
– no training required, quick derivation of the status quo, can direct
detailed investigations, rapid scenario generation
• “Introduction to” tool and getting conversations going between
departments