Flanders Ecosystem Assessment - www.nara.be

From mapping to accounting – scale is everything

Toon Spanhove, Sander Jacobs, Nicolas Dendoncker, Toon Van Daele, Carine Wils, Marijke Thoonen, Heidi Demolder, Helen Michels, Johan Peymen, Anik Schneiders, Maarten

Stevens, Peter Van Gossum, Wouter Van Reeth

Flanders Ecosystem Assessment - www.nara.be

“what do we need for proper mapping of multiple ecosystem services and respective practical applications?”

ES Supply Demand Use Valuation (tot)Food production 15 15Water production 3 1 4Wood production 3 3production of energy crops 9 9Game production 2 2Regulation of erosion risk 1 1 2Coastal protection 3 2 1 6Regulation of flooding risk 2 1 1 4Regulation of water quality 2 2Regultion of air quality 1 3 4Regulation of climate 4 4regulation of sound 2 1 3Pest control 0Pollination 3 1 2 6Soil fertility maintenance 1 1Green spaces for recreation 3 3 2 8

(tot) 52 12 7 2 73

ES Supply Demand Use Valuation (tot)Food production 15 15Water production 3 1 4Wood production 3 3production of energy crops 9 9Game production 2 2Regulation of erosion risk 1 1 2Coastal protection 3 2 1 6Regulation of flooding risk 2 1 1 4Regulation of water quality 2 2Regultion of air quality 1 3 4Regulation of climate 4 4regulation of sound 2 1 3Pest control 0Pollination 3 1 2 6Soil fertility maintenance 1 1Green spaces for recreation 3 3 2 8

(tot) 52 12 7 2 73

Goals of ES assessments

• Broader goal of sustainable and equal use of nature’s resources• Concrete goal of (mapping and) assessment: 2014• Concrete goal of accounting the (economic) value of ES: 2020

• 2020 is nearing: what maps are out there already?– Ingeniously combined data layers, scientifically sound– Proxy-based extrapolations, practically applicable

• Accounting requires repeated scientific assessment in realistic and comparable units.

Flanders Ecosystem Assessment - www.nara.be

Flanders Ecosystem Assessment - www.nara.be

- Scale effect- Aggregation effect

Modifiable Area Unit Problem “MAUP” a.k.a. Ecological Fallacies

Gehlke, C. and Biehl, K., 1934. Certain Effects of Grouping Upon the Size of the Correlation Coefficient in Census Tract Material, Journal of American Statistical Association, 29:169-170.Wrigley, N., Holt, T., Steel, D., and Tranmer, M. 1996. Analysing, modelling, and resolving the ecological fallacy. Pages 25-40 in P. Longley and M. Batty (eds) Spatial analysis: modelling in a GIS environment. Cambridge: GeoInformation International.Openshaw, S. 1996. Developing GIS-relevant zone-based spaital analysis methods. Page 55-73 in P. Longley and M. Batty (eds) Spatial analysis: modelling in a GIS environment. Cambridge: GeoInformation International.http://giscollective.org/geographic-data-assumptions-maup-and-ecological-fallacies/

ES maps based on biophysical data

Soil texture

Climate

…

Land Use

Distance rules

Regions

INPUT MAPS GIS “MODEL” ES MAPS

• 11 / 40 / 114 units• Several area divisions

“which ecosystems supply which ES?”

“which accounting units are optimal?”

Ecosystem (LU) classification

How much are these maps alike? Average of absolute value of residuals (%)

AREA

UNIT

Wood production

Waterproduction

Climate regulation

Conclusions• Accounting must be developped by merging (improving) BF information in

repeatable units over time.

• MAUP generates large effects on the final results and their comparability.

• Remember… don’t focus on maps only:

Flanders Ecosystem Assessment - www.nara.be