Selection and evaluation of projects to conserve ecosystem services

Climate and land use changes are reducing ecosystem services. Ecosystem managers can alleviate such adverse impacts by being more efficient in allocating limited budgets to projects designed to conserve ecosystem services, and ensuring that implemented projects are effective in stemming losses in ecosystem services. A conceptual framework is developed that managers can use for this purpose. The framework consists of two elements: (1) an a priori optimization model for selecting projects that minimize present value loss in ecosystem services subject to a budget constraint; and (2) an a posteriori model for determining the extent to which implemented projects have decreased ecosystem losses. An optimization model is formulated for three cases, which assume the ecosystem manager: (1) knows for sure how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services (certainty case); (2) does not know for sure how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services, but is able to specify the probabilities of service losses for different projects (risk case); and (3) is uncertain how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services (uncertainty case). Efficient selection of projects is evaluated for two areas of an ecosystem in mathematical and graphical terms using a continuous negative exponential relationship between present value losses and project expenditures for the certainty case, and for five expenditure classes in the risk and uncertainty cases. Two versions of the certainty case are evaluated, weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability allows gains in one ecosystem service to compensate for losses in another ecosystem service; strong sustainability does not. The risk case requires the manager to specify the conditional probabilities for present value losses given project expenditures, and utilizes expected costs and expected budget amounts in the budget constraint. It is solved by allocating the budget among projects so as to equalize the expected marginal present value losses in ecosystem services across projects. The uncertainty case requires the manager to specify ecosystem sustainability states and the present value losses in ecosystem services for combinations of states and projects. It is solved by selecting projects that minimize the maximum present value loss in ecosystem services subject to the budget constraint. The a posteriori evaluation method uses Bayesian statistical inference to test hypotheses about the extent to which implemented projects reduce losses in ecosystem services. It requires specifying ecosystem states that describe conditions for ecosystem services, and decides which hypothesis is true based on posterior probabilities of ecosystem states.

[1]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[2]  Edward B. Barbier,et al.  Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in the Third World@@@Sustaining Earth: Response to the Environmental Threat , 1990 .

[3]  Tony Prato,et al.  Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management , 2000 .

[4]  G. Daily Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. , 1998 .

[5]  Tony Prato,et al.  Bayesian adaptive management of ecosystems , 2005 .

[6]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Uncertainty, climate change, and adaptive management , 1997 .

[7]  David S. Schimel,et al.  CLIMATE CHANGE ,C LIMATE MODES, AND CLIMATE IMPACTS , 2003 .

[8]  N. Ramankutty,et al.  Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992 , 1999 .

[9]  Tony Prato,et al.  Accounting for Uncertainty in Making Species Protection Decisions , 2005 .

[10]  W. Solecki,et al.  SOUTH FLORIDA: THE REALITY OF CHANGE AND THE PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY: The role of global-to-local linkages in land use/land cover change in South Florida , 2001 .

[11]  Murray Turoff,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[12]  W. Adger,et al.  Land Use and the Causes of Global Warming , 1995 .

[13]  E. Barbier,et al.  Paradise Lost: The ecological economics of biodiversity , 2009 .

[14]  Dennis Ojima,et al.  The global impact of land-use change , 1994 .

[15]  Laurence S. Freedman,et al.  Bayesian statistical methods , 1996, BMJ.

[16]  Gerald J. Bakus,et al.  Decision making: With applications for environmental management , 1982 .

[17]  Tony Prato,et al.  Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management , 1999 .

[18]  Fred A. Johnson,et al.  BAYESIAN INFERENCE AND DECISION THEORY—A FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , 2003 .

[19]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[20]  Joanna Isobel House,et al.  Climate change 2001 : synthesis report , 2001 .

[21]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Assessing Future Ecosystem Services: a Case Study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin , 2003 .

[22]  B. Turner,et al.  Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective , 1995 .

[23]  C. Tapiero Risk and financial management , 2004 .