Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models.

Scientists, stakeholders and decision makers face trade-offs between adopting simple or complex approaches when modeling ecosystem services (ES). Complex approaches may be time- and data-intensive, making them more challenging to implement and difficult to scale, but can produce more accurate and locally specific results. In contrast, simple approaches allow for faster assessments but may sacrifice accuracy and credibility. The ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) modeling platform has endeavored to provide a spectrum of simple to complex ES models that are readily accessible to a broad range of users. In this paper, we describe a series of five "Tier 1" ES models that users can run anywhere in the world with no user input, while offering the option to easily customize models with context-specific data and parameters. This approach enables rapid ES quantification, as models are automatically adapted to the application context. We provide examples of customized ES assessments at three locations on different continents and demonstrate the use of ARIES' spatial multi-criteria analysis module, which enables spatial prioritization of ES for different beneficiary groups. The models described here use publicly available global- and continental-scale data as defaults. Advanced users can modify data input requirements, model parameters or entire model structures to capitalize on high-resolution data and context-specific model formulations. Data and methods contributed by the research community become part of a growing knowledge base, enabling faster and better ES assessment for users worldwide. By engaging with the ES modeling community to further develop and customize these models based on user needs, spatiotemporal contexts, and scale(s) of analysis, we aim to cover the full arc from simple to complex assessments, minimizing the additional cost to the user when increased complexity and accuracy are needed.

[1]  Ellis Q. Margolis,et al.  Historical fire-climate relationships of upper elevation fire regimes in the south-western United States , 2013 .

[2]  L. Verchot,et al.  Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. , 2012 .

[3]  Brian E. Robinson,et al.  When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services: Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models , 2017 .

[4]  A. Klein,et al.  Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Ge Sun,et al.  The sensitivity of ecosystem service models to choices of input data and spatial resolution , 2018 .

[6]  Toshio Koike,et al.  Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes , 2003 .

[7]  Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter,et al.  Season and landscape composition affect pollen foraging distances and habitat use of honey bees. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[8]  Achim Gathmann,et al.  Foraging ranges of solitary bees , 2002 .

[9]  Marvin N. Wright,et al.  SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning , 2017, PloS one.

[10]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment , 2014, PloS one.

[11]  G. Mace,et al.  Towards a Threat Assessment Framework for Ecosystem Services. , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach , 2017 .

[13]  B. Voigt,et al.  From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments , 2014 .

[14]  Hejie Wei,et al.  Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review , 2017 .

[15]  N. Ramankutty,et al.  Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000 , 2008 .

[16]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Quantifying Spatial Variation in Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach , 2017 .

[17]  Grégoire Dubois,et al.  Biophysical Characterization of Protected Areas Globally through Optimized Image Segmentation and Classification , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[18]  J. Voogd,et al.  Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning , 1982 .

[19]  P. Verburg,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives , 2015 .

[20]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .

[21]  S. Corbet,et al.  Temperature and the pollinating activity of social bees , 1993 .

[22]  Andrew Nelson,et al.  Agglomeration Index : Towards a New Measure of Urban Concentration , 2010 .

[23]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe , 2014 .

[24]  Claire Kremen,et al.  Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. , 2009, Annals of botany.

[25]  Salvatore Manfreda,et al.  Detection of Flood-Prone Areas Using Digital Elevation Models , 2011 .

[26]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms , 2013 .

[27]  Lynn Yarmey,et al.  Enabling FAIR Data , 2017 .

[28]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Satellite remote sensing of ecosystem functions: opportunities, challenges and way forward , 2018 .

[29]  K. Oost,et al.  An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion , 2017, Nature Communications.

[30]  Karst Teunis Geurs,et al.  Accessibility measures: review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact , 2001 .

[31]  Ferdinando Villa,et al.  Zoning Marine Protected Areas through Spatial Multiple‐Criteria Analysis: the Case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy , 2002 .

[32]  Kenneth J. Bagstad,et al.  Remote sensing and modeling to fill the “gap” in missing natural capital , 2018 .

[33]  K. Trenberth,et al.  The changing character of precipitation , 2003 .

[34]  M. Pérez-Soba,et al.  Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU , 2014 .

[35]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe , 2013 .

[36]  Laura Nahuelhual,et al.  Focusing Conservation Efforts on Ecosystem Service Supply May Increase Vulnerability of Socio-Ecological Systems , 2016, PloS one.

[37]  Steffen Fritz,et al.  Land Use and Land Cover Semantics: Principles, Best Practices, and Prospects , 2015 .

[38]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[39]  Tibor Erős,et al.  How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review , 2017 .

[40]  J. Grégoire,et al.  A new, global, multi‐annual (2000–2007) burnt area product at 1 km resolution , 2008 .

[41]  C. A. Zolin,et al.  Impact of climate change on water resources in agriculture , 2015 .

[42]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Why the Data Train Needs Semantic Rails , 2015, AI Mag..

[43]  G. R. Foster,et al.  Predicting soil erosion by water : a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) , 1997 .

[44]  Holly K. Gibbs,et al.  New IPCC Tier-1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000 , 2008 .

[45]  Stefano Balbi,et al.  Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[46]  A. Vatn,et al.  Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives , 2006 .

[47]  P. Potapov,et al.  Mapping the World's Intact Forest Landscapes by Remote Sensing , 2008 .

[48]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  ESTIMAP: A GIS-BASED MODEL TO MAP ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION , 2014 .

[49]  G. Daily,et al.  Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services , 2011 .

[50]  Karen E. Joyce,et al.  A method for automatic generation of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in New Zealand , 2009 .

[51]  Vandecasteele Ine,et al.  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010 , 2015 .

[52]  Simon Willcock,et al.  Do ecosystem service maps and models meet stakeholders’ needs? A preliminary survey across sub-Saharan Africa , 2016 .

[53]  Ioannis N. Athanasiadis,et al.  Machine learning for ecosystem services , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[54]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[55]  Taikan Oki,et al.  Does higher surface temperature intensify extreme precipitation? , 2011 .

[56]  G. Daily,et al.  Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions , 2015 .

[57]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based mapping of ecosystem services , 2010 .

[58]  Ioan Fazey,et al.  Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services , 2017 .

[59]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[60]  Ferdinando Villa Semantically driven meta-modelling: Automating model construction in an environmental decision support system for the assessment of ecosystem services flows , 2009, ITEE.

[61]  Fausto Guzzetti,et al.  Tier-based approaches for landslide susceptibility assessment in Europe , 2013, Landslides.

[62]  Maes Joachim,et al.  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services , 2013 .

[63]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Combining participatory modelling and citizen science to support volunteer conservation action , 2017 .

[64]  Ioannis N. Athanasiadis,et al.  Semantics for interoperability of distributed data and models: Foundations for better-connected information , 2017, F1000Research.

[65]  A. Nelson,et al.  Travel time to major cities: a global map of accessibility , 2008 .

[66]  Walter Jetz,et al.  A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios , 2018, bioRxiv.

[67]  Yang Hong,et al.  Development of an NRCS curve number global dataset using the latest geospatial remote sensing data for worldwide hydrologic applications , 2017 .

[68]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region , 2016 .

[69]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas , 2005 .

[70]  Peter M. Atkinson,et al.  Remote sensing of ecosystem services:a systematic review , 2015 .

[71]  A. K. Skidmore,et al.  Free satellite data key to conservation , 2018, Science.

[72]  Vivian Ochoa,et al.  Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges , 2017 .

[73]  C. Justice,et al.  High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change , 2013, Science.

[74]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation , 2013 .

[75]  Robert J. Hickey,et al.  Computing the LS factor for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation through array-based slope processing of digital elevation data using a C++ executable , 2004, Comput. Geosci..

[76]  K. Verdin,et al.  New Global Hydrography Derived From Spaceborne Elevation Data , 2008 .

[77]  Some Policy Implications THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF , 2016 .

[78]  Christopher Andrews,et al.  Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support , 2017, Ecosystem services.

[79]  P. Bates,et al.  Usefulness and limitations of global flood risk models , 2015 .

[80]  M. Onaindia,et al.  Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach , 2015 .

[81]  Laura Poggio,et al.  Spatial assessment of land degradation through key ecosystem services: The role of globally available data. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.