A Binary Approach to Define and Classify Final
Ecosystem Services
DIXON H. LANDERS 1 & AMANDA M. NAHLIK 1
,
1 US EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CORVALLIS, OREGON
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Identify, measure, and quantify
ecosystem services in a scientific,
rigorous, and systematic way that
can be aggregated to regional and
national scales.
2
ecosystem services
GOAL
Where it all started…
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment awakened the vision of using ecosystem services as a tool.
3
“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” (MEA 2005)
What are ecosystem services?
4
Ecosystem services are everything!
5
Just because scientists measure it does not mean it is an ecosystem service!
What is the problem?
• Many definitions and inconsistent lists of ecosystem services
• Miscommunication and discord among disciplines
• Disconnect between environment and human well-being
• Lack of consistency, rigor and a systematic approach; need typology and classification for “framework”
6
What do people care about?
soil microbes clean water fauna habitat
7
Connecting ecosystem services to benefits requires
interdisciplinary approaches.
The services quantified by ecologists are not
necessarily those directly valued by the public.
How do we connect
ecosystem services to human
well-being?
8
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
• A focused definition
– Measures of biophysical features
– Relates clearly to human beneficiaries
– Centers on the ecosystems
– Counts only direct interactions
9
“components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield
human well-being” (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)
How do you identify FEGS?
10
“components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield
human well-being” (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)
Environmental Class Beneficiary + FEGS
• Three Key Steps:
1. Clearly define the Environmental Class boundary
2. Identify Categories of Beneficiaries
3. For any Beneficiary and Environmental Class, hypothesize FEGS received
ES versus FEGS
• Two terms
– Ecosystem services
– Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
11
Ecosystem services Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
ES FEGS
Broadly defined and used Very specific definition
All-inclusive Discrete and specific
Mixes processes, functions, and goods Includes only goods and services
Duplicative Minimally duplicative
Identify, measure, and quantify
FEGS in a scientific, rigorous, and
systematic way that can be
aggregated to regional and
national scales.
12
GOAL
Environmental Classes
• Based on Anderson land use/land cover classes
• Modified so Environmental Class or Sub-Class boundaries can be identified and mapped using satellite
13
14
11. River and
Streams
12. Wetlands
13. Lakes and
Ponds
14. Near Coastal
Marine
15. Open Oceans
and Seas
16. Groundwater
21. Forests
22. Agro-
ecosystems
23. Created
Greenspace
24. Grasslands
23. Scrubland/
shrubland
24. Barren
25. Tundra
26. Ice & Snow
31. Atmosphere
1 Aquatic 2 Terrestrial 3 Atmospheric
XX Environmental Sub-Classes
X Environmental Classes
Beneficiaries
15
An individual is comprised of
many beneficiaries.
“the interests of an individual (i.e., person, group, and/or firm) that drive active or passive consumption and/or appreciation
of ecosystem services resulting in an impact (positive or negative) on their welfare” (Nahlik et al. 2012)
Beneficiaries
16
• 10 Beneficiary Categories
– Agricultural
– Commercial/Industrial
– Government, Municipal, and Residential
– Commercial/Military Transportation
– Subsistence
– Recreational
– Inspirational
– Learning
– Non-Use
– Humanity
• 39 Beneficiary Sub-Categories
17
How do you identify FEGS?
18
Environmental
Class Beneficiary FEGS
forest Subsistence harvester wood
fish Recreational angler
stream
Our Classification Scheme
19
Classifying FEGS
• Used distinct set of principles and rules
• Identified 351 sets of FEGS
– Each associated with a Beneficiary Sub-Category and Environmental Sub-Class
• Each set of FEGS can be identified by a unique, binomial, identification number
20
Products
21
• 2013 EPA Report
– Includes FEGS tables and instructions
– External review completed
– Final revisions underway
• Interactive database
– EPA Website
– Ability to create and download FEGS tables
– Can generate custom checklists of potential FEGS
– Forum and comments
– Currently in progress
– Begin to populate with metrics and indicators
Potential Uses
22
• Standard checklists of Potential FEGS generated by either selecting Beneficiaries or Environmental Classes
• Use as a standard framework operational at multiple spatial scales
• Common list of metrics and indicators associated with specific FEGS: facilitates site to program comparisons
• A standard basis for valuation linked to specific beneficiaries/FEGS
• A basis for developing a Beneficiary Typology linked to FEGS
23
“We are drowning in information while
starving for wisdom. The world will
henceforth be run by synthesizers,
people able to put together the right
information at the right time, think
critically about it, and make important
choices wisely.”
E.O. Wilson, 1998
Consilience