Developing Ecosystem Services Science for Policy
Needs in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, USA:
A Place-Based Study
Dixon H. Landers, Robert McKane, Jana Compton
Rene Brooks, Paul Rygiewicz, John Bolte and Connie
Burdick. USEPA, Western Ecology Division
Corvallis, OR USA
Linking Human Well-Being with
Ecosystem Services
ACES Meeting – Naples, FL
09 Dec 2008
1
1
The EPA Challenge:
Change the economic and human
well-being foundation for
environmental decision-making
Current Investment:
200 Scientists
~$62 million dollars supporting research
2
2
Ecological Services Research Program
Goals:
 Long-Term Goal 1: National policy makers will have the tools
and technologies to develop scientifically-defensible
assessments of the state of our nation’s ecosystems and the
effectiveness of existing national programs and policies
 Long-Term Goal2: States and tribes apply improved tools and
methods to protect and restore their valued ecological
resources
 Long-Term Goal 3: Decision-makers understand the importance
of ecosystem services and make informed, proactive
management decisions that consider a range of alternative
outcomes
3
3
Uses
 Setting policies and guidelines:
• EPA often seeks to promote its mission through a variety of policy
instruments that do not have the legal force of national rules. .
 Quantifying benefits for national rule-making:
• The Office of Management and Budget establishes data requirements
needed to assess the benefits and costs associated with these rules.
 Developing environmental GDP accounts or other
environmental indicators:
• In recent years, there have been numerous calls for establishing
environmental accounts within our national Gross Domestic Product
accounts.
 Acting as a catalyst for market innovations:
• In some cases, EPA seeks to engage the private sector directly in its
efforts to improve environmental conditions.
4
4
EPA Ecological Services Research
Program - Place-Based Studies
Southwest
5
5
Why Place-Based Research?
 Work with actual, interested end-point users of research
tools to assist with design and implementation
 Confront contextual social and economic forces,
challenges and solutions
 Test models with appropriate data types and coverages
 Develop a manageable approach to scaling
 Enlist “local” experts with knowledge tailored to the
question and issues
 Compare like and contrast different approaches to
similar issues among PBPs
 Synthesize knowledge derived from the above activities
to determine what level of information is ADEQUATE for
decision makers to project ES at a national scale.
6
6
Willamette Basin:
A Place Based Study
7
7
Portland, OR
Willamette Ecosystem
Service District
Landcover




65% Forest
20% Ag; 11% Urban
4% Riparian Wetland
Not all forests are equal
•
•
8
8
High elevation (N sensitive or N retentive?)
Broadleaf vs. Conifer
CLIMATE OF OPPORTUNITY
Why the Willamette?







9
9
Willamette “Ecosystem Service District” provides a broad range of LandUse/Land-Cover, stressors, gradients, and diverse, linked settings
WED Alternative Futures research experience (mid 1990’s) = rich data sets,
experienced researchers, potential collaborators (NRCS, USACE, USDAFS, USGS, OWOW, etc.)
Well Connected Research and Regulatory Entities now Working toward
future Ecosystem Service trading (Region X)
Multiple related Star Grant recipients (OSU, OU, PSU)
Willamette Partnership (State Non-Profit); OWEB
Trading Scenario for Temperature (riparian wetland ecosystem service)
rapidly developing – EPA Funding with Region X oversight
ORD Multi-Year Plan – Ecosystem Research Program: provides explicit
context
Overall Goal:
The W-ESP seeks to provide a scientifically based decision support system for
valuing and projecting ecological services resulting from alternative management
decisions
Objectives:
Quantify ecosystem services, including their distribution and status.
Provide models to predict responses of ecosystem services to probable
future conditions.
Identify critical knowledge gaps in our understanding of how ecosystem
services are provided.
Evaluate net benefits of bundled ecosystem services and tradeoffs among
management actions that affect these services.
10
10
11
11
Translating
services into quantifiable spatial metrics
Avoiding Unintended Consequences
12
12
Willamette Conceptual Model: ALL LAND USES
Decisions
Policy, Regulatory,
Economic, Political…
Forest
Land Use
Agricultural
Land Use
Riparian
Land Use
Water Quality &
Quantity
GCC
Mitigation
Environmental Stressors / Drivers
Adaptive Management
Δ Stressors /
Drivers
Climate
Soils & Hydrogeomorphology
Global
Change
Fish &
Wildlife
(Quantitative ERFs)*
Δ Ecosystem
Services
(Quantitative EPFs)**
STRUCTURE
Species, Food Webs,
Spatial Organization, Soils
Ag & Forest
Products
Fish
& Wildlife
Recreation
& Tourism
Pests &
invasives
Fire
Land
Use
Land
Cover
Water
Use
Chemicals Hunting &
Land, Air, Water
Fishing
FUNCTION
STRUCTURE
FUNCTION
Carbon, Nutrient & Water Cycling;
Soil Formation & Degradation,
Competition, Reproduction, Mortality, etc
Species, Food Webs,
Spatial Organization, Benthic &
Water Column
Carbon, Nutrient & Water Cycling;
Sediment Dynamics, Groundwater Interactions
Competition, Reproduction, Mortality, etc
Carbon
Sequestration
Biodiversity
GHG
Regulation
Recreation
Air Quality
Water
Quantity
Sense of
Place
Water
Quality
Extractive
Energy, Minerals, Rx
(of ES Bundle)***
$$$$$
13
Δ Human
Well-being***
Other
Extractive
Aquatic Ecosystem
Δ Value
13
Wilderness
Anthropogenic Stressors / Drivers
Terrestrial Ecosystem
Δ Ecosystem
Energy &
Minerals
Non-Economic Value
Stakeholder Prioritization
Fire
Regulation
Sediment
Regulation
Inventory of Current Ecosystem Services:
Approach and Knowledge Gaps
1. Identify key ecosystem services (ES) Willamette
Ecosystem Services District
2. Determine appropriate units for ES
3. Develop an approach to inventory, “scale” and map ES
4. Identify knowledge gaps in assessing ES
14
14
Cross Place Based Coordination on ES
ESRP-Wide “Common” Services
Stressors
 Land Use
• Forest
• Agriculture
• Riparian
Sense of
• Urban
Place
 Global
Change
Stressors
• Climate
?? Social Scientist ??
• CO2
• N deposition
 Chemicals
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
Productivity
Models
Carbon
Wildlife
Populations
Storage
PlantNutrient
Communities
Cycling
Biogeochemistry
Water
Quality
Hydrology
Water
Quantity
Biodiversity
15
15
Willamette
Terrestrial Services







Ag products
Forest products
C sequestration
Nutrient regulation
GHG regulation
Effects
Habitat
quality
Wildlife populations
Aquatic Services
 Water quality
 Water quantity
 Fish & waterfowl
Definition of Terms Used to Determine
Future Responses of Ecosystem Services to
Multiple Response Variables
 Forcing Variables (Stressors)
 Natural and anthropogenic factors affecting quantifiable changes in
the status (e.g. amounts & fluxes) of ecosystem processes
 ERF: Ecological Response Function
 The response of an ecosystem service to a particular forcing variable
 ETF: Ecological Trade-off Function
 The relationships between two (or more) ecosystem services in
response to the same forcing variable (…and, eventually, multiple
forcing variables)
16
16
Conceptual Framework
ERF1
ERF2
N Export
Crop Yield
Ecosystem Service vs. Forcing Variable = ERF
N Fertilization
N Fertilization
N Export
Crop Yield
Tradeoff = ETF
N Fertilization
Socioeconomics
17
•
•
•
•
•
Food/fiber Yield
Carbon Sequestration
Water Quality
Water Quantity
GHG regulation (N2O, NOx, CH4 …)
ERF X-axis: Forcing Variables
ERF1 + ERF2
17
ERF Y-axis: Ecosystem Services
Valuation & Trading of
Ecosystem Services
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soils & Geology
Climate (Temp, Precip, Light, CO2)
Fertilization Practices
Tillage Practices
Cover Type (Species, Riparian Buffers…)
Many others…
Some Agricultural ERFs & ETFs
• Read vertically to compare responses (ERFs) for a given service to 3 different stressors
• Read horizontally to assess trade-offs (ETFs) among 3 services at any given stressor level
Water
Quality
18
18
Soil Carbon
Stream Nitrate
Crop Yield
Tillage
Drought Index
Tillage
Tillage
Soil Carbon
Stream Nitrate
Crop Yield
Climate
N Fertilization
N Fertilization
N Fertilization
Tillage
Carbon
Sequestration
Soil Carbon
Crop Yield
Fertilization
Stream Nitrate
Food
Production
Drought Index
Drought Index
Scaling Up Ecosystem Services – Using Biophyical Models
snobear.colorado.edu/IntroHydro/hydro.gif
Plots, Stands
Hillslopes, Catchments
Basin, Region
Using nitrogen addition & export as an example…
Hillslope-Scale ERFs
?
High % sand
Deep flowpaths
?
Basin-Scale ERFs
Less Buffers
N Export
Low % sand
N Export
Crop Yield
Plot-Scale ERFs
?
More Buffers
Shallow flowpaths
N Fertilization
Buffer Width
Ag:Forest Area Ratio
Models: Statistical and Process-Based
Synthesize & Scale Up Data  Plots to Region, Days to Centuries
19
19
Issues of Scale
1. Spatial Extrapolation
Known
Unknown
2. Decision Making and the
Adequacy of Scientific
Understanding
e.g. Region to Tax Lot
20
20
Develop an
approach to
inventory
and map ES
Inventory and mapping the
location and value of
Ecosystem Services is an
essential activity of W-ESP
W-ESP (Chan et al. 2006)
21
21
Decision Support System – General Structure
Landscape Feedback
Clients: making
multiple decisions by
selecting policies
responsive to their
objectives
Quantification and
Valuation of
Ecosystem Services:
apply indicators reflecting
quantity
Actions
Landscape:
Policy
Selection
Policies:
Constraints and actions
defining land use
management
decisionmaking
Spatial domain in
which land use
changes and other
stressors are
depicted
Natural Change
Processes:
Models of non-human
change
22
22
Modified from John Bolte, Oregon State University
Hypothetical ecosystem service values:
Bundled by land use in the Willamette ESD
Native Headwater Riparian Vegetated
Forest Grassland Wetland
forest
buffer
Rip Rap
slope
Row
crop
Grass
seed
Urban
Relative value*
+
0
Ecosystem Services
Nutrient removal
Temperature regulation
-
Carbon Sequestration
Habitat
Flood protection
Food & Goods
*Relative value could be a rate, say kg/ha/yr, or represent economic or social value.
23
23
Limitations Regarding Implementation
Disciplinary Needs:
Sociologist – Human Health and Well Being; Mediated Modeling
Economist – Market and Non-Market Valuation
Modelers – System Approaches and Scaling
24
24
25
25
26
26
End Product
Options
Relative Ecosystem Services
Within an Ecosystem District
A
B
Forest
Row crop
C
Livestock
SAV
Mangrove
Wetland
Headwater
wetland
Rip Rap
slope
Vegetated
buffer strip
Urban
27
27
Scaling and
Aggregation
Under
Alternative
Management
Scenarios
Net Value of
Services
Management
Option X
Desired
Outcomes:
Forcing Variables:
•Clean rivers
•Fish & Wildlife
•Flood control
•Timber& Crops
•Wetlands
Place-Based Societal
Issues & Values
•Predicted climate
change
•Air pollution
•Land use management
•Population growth
Research Targeted to Develop Ecological Response Functions (ERF)
and Ecological Trade-off Functions (ETF)
Natural &
Anthropogenic
Stressors
Past,
Present
&
Future
Ecosystem
Structure &
Functioning
Production
Pools
Decomposition
Flows
Ag-/De-gradation
Land-Water
Interactions
C-Sequestration
Mapped
Ecosystem
Services
Future
Projections
N-control
Critical habitat
Water provisioning
Water Quality
Riparian wetland ES
ERFs
ETFs
Projected and
Quantified
Bundles of
Ecosystem
Services
W-ESP Decision Support System
Societal Response
&
EPA Policy Actions
28
28
Tradable Ecosystem
Service Units
•Cost
•Optimization
•Market&Forces
Futures
Trading
Analyses
•Valuation
Direct drivers (forcing variables) of ecosystem change






Changes in land use
Pollution
Climate change
Invasive species
Overexploitation
Other
World Resources Institute
29
29
Collaborators and Stakeholders
30
30
ERFs, ETFs Have Many Dimensions
High Sand%
Stream Nitrate
Crop Yield
Tillage
?
31
31
?
High Sand%
Drought Index
High Sand%
?
Low Sand%
High Sand%
?
Low Sand%
Drought Index
Low Sand%
?
High Sand%
N Fertilization
Low Sand%
?
High Sand%
Tillage
Tillage
Stream Nitrate
Climate
Crop Yield
Tillage
Low Sand%
Low Sand%
N Fertilization
N Fertilization
Low Sand%
?
Soil Carbon
High Sand%
High Sand%
Soil Carbon
?
Low Sand%
Soil Carbon
Fertilization
Crop Yield
Low Sand%
Stream Nitrate
Example 1: soil texture modifies the effects of the 3 stressors at left
Carbon
Food
Water
Sequestration
Production
Quality
?
High Sand%
Drought Index
ERFs, ETFs Have Many Dimensions
Example 2: the 3 stressors at left have interactive effects
?
High Drought Index
Stream Nitrate
Crop Yield
Tillage
32
32
?
Low N Fert
Drought Index
Low Drought Index
?
High Drought Index
High N Fert
?
Low N Fert
Drought Index
Low Tillage
?
High Tillage
N Fertilization
Low Drought Index
?
High Drought Index
Tillage
Tillage
Stream Nitrate
Climate
Crop Yield
Tillage
High N Fert
Low Tillage
N Fertilization
N Fertilization
Low Drought Index
?
Soil Carbon
High Tillage
High Tillage
Soil Carbon
?
Stream Nitrate
Crop Yield
Fertilization
Low Tillage
Carbon
Sequestration
Soil Carbon
Water
Quality
Food
Production
High N Fert
?
Low N Fert
Drought Index
Ecosystem Research Program LTG 5
By 2013 ERP will complete site-specific demonstration projects
that illustrate how regional and local managers can use alternative
future scenarios to proactively conserve and enhance ecosystem
goods and services in order to benefit human well-being and to
secure the integrity and productivity of ecological systems.
33
33
34
34
Place Based Sites
Tampa Bay – warm humid, 5 or so small watersheds, rapid urbanization,
unique estuarine habitat, and high recreational use.
Midwest – temperate, multi-state, bread basket, biofuel production and
processing pressures, many unique habitats.
Pacific Northwest – cool moist, strong policy and planning element for
sustainable economic growth, focus on riparian forest.
Coastal Carolinas – warm humid, wetlands loss and sea level rise, impacts to
sensitive habitats and protected species.
35
35
Working Across Multiple Locations
Provides opportunities to:
Test similar methods in different locations
Look at urban to rural gradient
Evaluate variety of stressors
Research ways to upscale results
Develop coupled ecological/economic modeling/tools
Reach out to larger audience
36
36
What are the common functions and services across places?
Nutrient
Cycling
Water
Quantity
Productivity Biodiversity
Water
Quality
Carbon
Storage
Sense of
Place
What are the likely contributions to human well being?
Contribution to Well Being
Land Value
Existence
Value
Human
Health
Energy
Recreation
37
37
Climate
Mitigation
Flood
Control
Food/Fiber
Aesthetics
Cultural
Potable
Water
Habitat / refugia
Biogeochemical
Cycling
Carbon pool storages
standing biomass
soil organic content
38
nature, location, quantity &
arrangement
Fresh water
nature, location, quantity &
arrangement
Carbon sequestration
net primary production
Estuarine
nitrification
Grams nitrogen / unit area
/ unit time
nature, location, quantity &
arrangement
Near-coastal, marine
nature, location, quantity &
arrangement
Biodiversity
Species counts
Air quality regulation
due to vegetation**
Removal of pollutants
Micro-climate
regulation due to
vegetation
Changes in diurnal
temperature ranges from
background
Denitrification (in
rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, wetlands)
38
Terrestrial
microbial abundance;
oxidation rate, (see
Wolheim and others for
proxies)
Disturbance &
Natural Hazard
Regulation
Food/Fiber
Production
Erosion Control
kg/ha/year reduced
Plant crops (grains,
fruits, et
Bushel /ha/year
Flood Control
Change in flood peaks (2yr., 10-yr., 50-yr.
recurrence interval)
Animal protein
Terrestrial (livestock)
lbs/ha, animals/ha
Fire Control
Fuel load
Wild aquatic
(commercial fish)
“yearling” estimates,
catch, change in catch,
change in fish advisories
Grazing Forage
Production
Livestock supported/ hay
bale/ha
Fuels
Net energy production
Biological
Regulation
Pollination
Increased production due
to pollinators
Pest Control
Diversity/distance from
ideal/fragmentation
Disease Control
Host vector habitat
39
39
Recreational
Water provisioning
Quality
EMAP condition indicators
Hunting & Fishing
Licenses/take
Surface water storages
usable volume/capacity
Ecotourism/Nature Viewing/
trekking/ camping
Visits /year
Groundwater
--maps of regional and alluvial
aquifers
-- recharge rates per unit area
-- est’d. change in aquifer
storage, or piezometric head.,
ft. above reference
Boating
Rentals/docking fees
Recreational Sports
Rentals
Sense of place
Spatially explicit visualization of
change in landscape for selected
service endpoints
Spiritual value
Spatially explicit estimates of
change in indigenous nonconsumptive use service endpoints
Existence value / behest
value
Spatially explicit visualization of
change in landscape for selected
service endpoints, including nonconsumptive use endpoints
Timing:
Maintenance of base flow
Statistical measures of
baseflow characteristics, and
change in same
Hydrologic regime
Statistical measures of flow
regime, and change in same
40
40