Abstract
Ecosystem services modelling tools can help land managers and policy makers evaluate the impacts of alternative management options or changes in land use on the delivery of ecosystem services. As the variety and complexity of these tools increases, there is a need for comparative studies across a range of settings, allowing users to make an informed choice. Using examples of provisioning and regulating services (water supply, carbon storage and nutrient retention), we compare three spatially explicit tools - LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Models were parameterised for the UK and applied to a temperate catchment with widely varying land use in North Wales. Although each tool provides quantitative mapped output, can be applied in different contexts, and can work at local or national scale, they differ in the approaches taken and underlying assumptions made. In this study, we focus on the wide range of outputs produced for each service and discuss the differences between each modelling tool. Model outputs were validated using empirical data for river flow, carbon and nutrient levels within the catchment. The sensitivity of the models to land-use change was tested using four scenarios of varying severity, evaluating the conversion of grassland habitat to woodland (0-30% of the landscape). We show that, while the modelling tools provide broadly comparable quantitative outputs, each has its own unique features and strengths. Therefore the choice of tool depends on the study question.
Highlights
Ecosystem services modelling tools allow the quantification, spatial mapping, and in some cases economic valuation, of ecosystem services
The output from these tools can provide essential information for land managers and policy makers to evaluate the potential impact of alternative management options or land-use change on multiple services (Daily et al, 2009). Such tools are being used around the world, at a range of spatial scales, to address a wide variety of policy and management questions. They have been used to investigate the possible effects of climate change on water provisioning and erosion control in a Mediterranean basin (Bangash et al, 2013), to provide guidelines for water resource management in China (Fu et al, 2014), and to examine the potential impact of agricultural expansion on biodiversity and carbon storage in Brazil (Chaplin-Kramer et al, 2015)
Model outputs from ARIES and InVEST for carbon storage, water and scenic viewshed services were compared for a semi-arid river basin in Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico, under different management scenarios (Bagstad et al, 2013b)
Summary
Ecosystem services modelling tools allow the quantification, spatial mapping, and in some cases economic valuation, of ecosystem services The output from these tools can provide essential information for land managers and policy makers to evaluate the potential impact of alternative management options or land-use change on multiple services (Daily et al, 2009). Such tools are being used around the world, at a range of spatial scales, to address a wide variety of policy and management questions. There are online toolkits available, for example, the National Ecosystem Approach Toolkit (NEAT; http://neat.ecosystemsknowledge.net/), providing guidance on selecting an appropriate modelling tool
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
