Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning
- 1.4k Downloads
Data for biophysically modeled and Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS)-derived cultural ecosystem services have potential to identify natural resource management synergies and conflicts, but have rarely been combined. Ecosystem service hot/coldspots generated using different methods vary in their spatial extent and connectivity, with important implications.
We map biophysically modeled and PPGIS-derived cultural services for six U.S. national forests using six hot/coldspot delineation methods. We evaluate the implications of hotspot methods for management within and outside of designated wilderness areas.
We used the ARIES and SolVES modeling tools to quantify four biophysically modeled and 11 largely cultural ecosystem services for six national forests in Colorado and Wyoming, USA. We mapped hot/coldspots using two quantile methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of values), two area-based methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of area), and two statistical methods (Getis-Ord Gi* at α = 0.05 and 0.10 significance level) and compare results within and outside wilderness areas.
Delineation methods vary in their degree of conservatism for hot/coldspot extents and spatial clustering. Hotspots were more common in wilderness areas in national forests near the more densely populated Colorado Front Range, while coldspots were more common in wilderness areas in more urban-distant forests in northwest Wyoming.
Statistical hotspot methods of intermediate conservatism (i.e., Getis-Ord Gi*, α = 0.10 significance) may be most useful for ecosystem service hot/coldspot mapping to inform landscape scale planning. We also found spatially explicit evidence in support of past findings about public attitudes toward wilderness areas.
KeywordsARIES Cultural ecosystem services Hotspot analysis Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) SolVES Wilderness
Support for this work was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Land Change Science program. Brian Voigt, Ferdinando Villa, James Reed, Gary Johnson, and students participating in a graduate-level ecosystem services modeling course taught in the University of Denver’s Department of Geography in the fall of 2011 assisted with ARIES model development. We thank Jessica Clement for sharing survey data from the BT, PSI, and SNF national forests, and Stuart Cottrell, Mike Czaja, and Jessica Clement for their work in collecting survey data from the AR, MBR, and WR national forests. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
- ARIES Consortium (2016) ARIES—artificial intelligence for ecosystem services, rocky mountains case study. http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/?project=rocky-mountains-case-study. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
- Brown G (2012) Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA J 25:7–18Google Scholar
- Brown G, Alessa L (2005) A GIS-based inductive study of wilderness values. Int J Wilderness 11:14–18Google Scholar
- Brown G, Reed P (2009) Public participation GIS: a new method for use in National Forest planning. For Sci 55:166–182Google Scholar
- Chan KMA, Goldstein J, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Kikiloi K, Naidoo R, Vadeboncoeur N, Woodside U (2011) Cultural services and non-use values. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–228Google Scholar
- Clement JP, Belin AD, Bean MJ, Boling TA, Lyons JR (2014) A strategy for improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: a report to the Secretary of the Interior from the energy and climate change task force. U.S Department of the Interior, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Cordell HK, Tarrant MA, McDonald BL, Bergstrom JC (1998) How the public views wilderness: more results from the USA survey on recreation and the environment. Int J Wilderness 4:31Google Scholar
- Council on Environmetnal Quality (CEQ) (2015) Memorandum M-16-01: incorporating ecosystem services into Federal Decision Making. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2016
- Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe R, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8812–8819CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- ESP Maps (2014) The Ecosystem Services Partnership visualization tool: an interactive knowledge platform for ecosystem service maps. http://esp-mapping.net/HOME/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016
- Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) (2011) Natural Capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kellndorfer J, Walker W, LaPoint E, Bishop J, Cormier T, Fiske G, Hoppus M, Kirsch K, Westfall J (2012) NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline Data (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000. http://whrc.org/publications-data/datasets/national-biomass-and-carbon-dataset/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016
- McIntyre N, Moore J, Yuan M (2008) A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc Nat Resour 21:657–670Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living beyond our means—natural assets and human well-being. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- National Ecosystem Services Partnership (2014) Federal resource management and ecosystem services guidebook. https://nespguidebook.com/. Accessed 27 Mar 2016
- Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016) Soil Survey Geographic Database. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Accessed 27 Mar 2016
- Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (2016) MODIS GPP/NPP Project. http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/mod17. Accessed 27 Mar 2016
- Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1996) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Handbook 703. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Rolston H, Coufal J (1991) A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. J For 89:35–40Google Scholar
- Rudzitis G (1999) Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14:9–13Google Scholar
- Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ (2015) Social values for ecosystem services, Version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0)—Documentation and user manual. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1008. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
- U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Watson AE, Venn T (2012) Wilderness ecosystem services: a focus on applications. Int J Wilderness 18:3Google Scholar
- Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Martin TG, Grantham HS (2010) Key concepts. In: Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (eds), Marxan good practices handbook, version 2. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Victoria, pp 18–23Google Scholar