Roy Haines Young & Marion Potschin Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham roy.haines

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Roy Haines Young & Marion Potschin Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham roy.haines"

Antonia Cox
5 years ago
Views:

1 Roy Haines Young & Marion Potschin Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham roy.haines

2 A new paradigm? 2

3 3

water, or or biomass) What is the nature of

(e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or

contribution to aspects of well being aspects

health and safety) safety) Value Value (e.g.

4 Biophysical structure or process (e.g. woodland habitat or net primary productivity ) Limit pressures via policy action? Σ Pressures Critical levels of natural capital? Function (e.g. (e.g. slow slow passage passage of of water, water, or or biomass) What is the nature of this relationship? Service Service (e.g. (e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or or harvestable harvestable products) products) Benefit Benefit (e.g. contribution to (e.g. contribution to aspects of well being aspects of well being such as health and such as health and safety) safety) Value Value (e.g. willingness to pay (e.g. willingness to pay for woodland for woodland protection or for more protection or for more woodland, or woodland, or harvestable products) harvestable products) Ecosystem service cascade (after Haines Young & Potschin, 21) 4

5 5

6 Fisher et al. (28) 6

7 Boyd and Banzhaf, 25 7

8 Biophysical structure or process (e.g. woodland habitat or net primary productivity ) Limit pressures via policy action? Σ Pressures Function (e.g. (e.g. slow slow passage passage of of water, water, or or biomass) Service Service (e.g. (e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or or harvestable harvestable products) products) Benefit Benefit (e.g. contribution to (e.g. contribution to aspects of well being aspects of well being such as health and such as health and safety) safety) Value Value (e.g. willingness to pay (e.g. willingness to pay for woodland for woodland protection or for more protection or for more woodland, or woodland, or harvestable products) harvestable products) Intermediate Products Final Products (after Haines Young and Potschin, 21) 8

9 Biophysical structure or process Function Service Service Benefit Benefit Value Value 9

10 Biophysical structure Forest Function Service Benefit Value Root structure and soil binding Canopy structure Erosion control Reducing landslides Sun Solar radiation Warmth of sun on my skin Well being vitamin D Misquitoplus Habitat Malaria People getting sick Reducing risks (eg. costs of repair) Happiness 1

11 Service providing units (SPUs) & Ecosystem Service Providers (ESP) Luck et al. (29) BioScience 59:

12 Can service providers be characterised in terms of functional groups on the basis of their response traits and their effects traits? Landscape as an integrating theme 12

13 Is there a simple direct relationship between biodiversity and service output? What in fact do we mean be biodiversity? Can the results of manipulative experiments be scaled up to whole landscapes? Ecosystem function B A Biodiversity Schwartz et al. (2) Balvanera et al. (26) EASA (29) and others C 13

14 After Braat and ten Brink 28 14

15 New insights and puzzles? 15

Ecosystem services are the outputs of ecosystem functioning

(e.g. slow slow passage passage of of water, water, or or

(e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or or harvestable

such as health and such as health and safety) safety) Value

16 Ecosystem services are the outputs of ecosystem functioning that directly contribute to human well being. Biophysical structure or process (e.g. woodland habitat or net primary productivity ) Function (e.g. (e.g. slow slow passage passage of of water, water, or or biomass) Service Service (e.g. (e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or or harvestable harvestable products) products) Benefit Benefit (e.g. contribution to (e.g. contribution to aspects of well being aspects of well being such as health and such as health and safety) safety) Value Value (e.g. willingness to pay (e.g. willingness to pay for woodland for woodland protection or for more protection or for more woodland, or woodland, or harvestable products) harvestable products) 16

17 There is a pressing need to understand how these production systems work And how the outputs change in response to the pressures upon these systems and our management interventions But empirical, observational data are often lacking and or difficult to collect.. 17

18 These production systems cross disciplinary divides and require us to combine quantitative and qualitative information Moreover, they are socially constructed and depend fundamentally on how different groups (experts, decision makers, publics) construct the world They also should capture the uncertainty that exists in the insights we have about the way the world works 18

the stakeholder/client perspective, by: Helping capture stakeholder's views of the world Modelling Service

19 These are many modelling approaches but Bayesian Networks (BN) are a good way of constructing narratives and of combining different kinds of knowledge They can help build up this rich picture of the problem from the stakeholder/client perspective, by: Helping capture stakeholder's views of the world Modelling Service Providing Units (SPUs), etc. [The production cascade] By helping constructing scenarios and identifying values 19

20 Software: NETICA Many other systems available HUGIN BayesBuider... 2

21 Cain (21) defines a BN as a graphical tool for building decision support systems. Cain (21) argues that they are mainly used to help make decisions under uncertain conditions. Basically they are a way of structuring our beliefs about the way systems work in terms of a set of relationships that have probabilities associated with them. 21

22 Yes No Rain today? Chancesof Rain Tomorrow? High Moderate Low

23 Yes No Rain today? Chancesof Rain Tomorrow? High Moderate Low

24 Yes No Rain today? Chancesof Rain Tomorrow? High Moderate Low

25 Peatlands are the single largest carbon reserve in the UK (3 billion tonnes of carbon) The Peak District moorlands store between 6 and 2 million tonnes of carbon (Moors for the Future, 27) 25

per year (Moors for the Future, 27) Legend

26 The restoration and enhancement of UK peatlands could save around 4, tonnes carbon a year. This is equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions from 1.1 billion car miles or 84, family sized cars per year (Moors for the Future, 27) Legend SSSI Condition (Bog) CONDITION DESTROYED FAVOURABLE UNFAVOURABLE DECLINING UNFAVOURABLE NO CHANGE UNFAVOURABLE RECOVERING 26

27 Peat_formation Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Peat decomposition Example of carbon sequestration as an ecosystem service we can view it as a: Simple systems diagram 27

28 Peat_formation Active 34.9 Inactive ± 5.6 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 2.6 Stable 29.6 Decreasing ±.39 Peat decomposition high 86. moderate 6.9 low ± 2.9 Example of carbon sequestration as an ecosystem service we can view it as a: Simple systems diagram Or as a set of nodes with defined states And we can express our uncertainty abut outcomes in terms of probabilities 28

29 Peat_formation Active 34.9 Inactive ± 5.6 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 2.6 Stable 29.6 Decreasing ±.39 Peat decomposition high 86. moderate 6.9 low ± 2.9 Example of carbon sequestration as an ecosystem service we can view it as a: Simple systems diagram Or as a set of nodes with defined states And we can express our uncertainty abut outcomes in terms of probabilities 29

Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive 7.81 4.72 ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing 17.7.19 ±.36 Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low 2.9 3.64 ± 3.

30 Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing ±.36 Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low ± 3.5 Example of carbon sequestration as an ecosystem service we can view it as a: Simple systems diagram Or as a set of nodes with defined states And we can express our uncertainty abut outcomes in terms of probabilities 3

31 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseli... to to to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing ±.36 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low ± 3.5 Drainage management New drainage No change 5. Restoration ±.75 Liming Done 5. Not done 5. ± 1 Heavy Light None Grazing 6..5 ±.77 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Water table Rising 24. Stable 41. Dropping ± 1.8 Burning None 5. Managed 5. Wildfire.25 ±.25 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 29.8 Anerobic ±.46 Bayesian Belief Network 31

32 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseli... to to to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 58.4 Inactive ± 5.7 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 27.2 Stable 36.3 Decreasing ±.4 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 77.4 moderate 11.9 low ± 3.1 Drainage management New drainage No change 5. Restoration ±.75 Liming Done 5. Not done 5. ± 1 Heavy Light None Grazing 6..5 ±.77 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Water table Rising 24. Stable 41. Dropping ± 1.8 Burning None 5. Managed 5. Wildfire.25 ±.25 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 1 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic 36. Typically anerobic 31.4 Anerobic ±.83 Bayesian Belief Network 32

33 Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing ±.36 Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low ± 3.5 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Mire or bog Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseli... to to to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Summer drought likely unlikely ±.98 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing ±.36 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low ± 3.5 Liming Done Not done Drainage management New drainage No change 5. Restoration ±.75 ± 1 Grazing Heavy Light 6. None NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions.5 ±.77 Water table Rising 24. Stable 41. Dropping ± 1.8 Burning None 5. Managed 5. Wildfire.25 ±.25 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 29.8 Anerobic ±.46 33

34 Peat_formation Active 58.4 Inactive ± 5.7 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 27.2 Stable 36.3 Decreasing ±.4 Peat decomposition high 77.4 moderate 11.9 low ± 3.1 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Acid grassland Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseli... to to to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Summer drought likely unlikely ±.98 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 92.2 Inactive ± 3.8 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 39.5 Stable 42.8 Decreasing ±.36 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 66.6 moderate 12.5 low ± 3.5 Liming Done Not done Drainage management New drainage No change 5. Restoration ±.75 ± 1 Grazing Heavy Light 6. None NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions.5 ±.77 Water table Rising 24. Stable 41. Dropping ± 1.8 Burning None 5. Managed 5. Wildfire.25 ±.25 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 29.8 Anerobic ±.46 34

35 We use evidence and beliefs to set up the CPTs. Cain (21) suggests the following hierarchy: Information Type 1: Raw data collected by direct measurement (e.g. groundwater depth measured by piezometer, population measured by census, income measured by accounting). Information Type 2: Raw data collected through stakeholder elicitation (e.g. stakeholder perceptions of groundwater depth, population and income). Information Type 3: Output from process-based models calibrated using raw data collected by direct measurement. Information Type 4: Academic expert opinion, based on theoretical calculation or best judgement. Type 1 is is to to be be preferred, then then type type 2, 2, 3 and and Often we we only only have have opinion! But But opinions and and values count 35

36 They allow us to combine different sorts of data into a single meta model. They allow us to express scenarios systematically and understand the implications of our different assumptions 36

Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Summer drought likely 6. unlikely 4. 1.2 ±.98 Temperature increase (+ baseline) to.5.

37 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Temperature increase (+ baseline) to.5.5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 98.4 Inactive ± 2.9 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 34.9 Stable 48.8 Decreasing ±.35 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 75.6 moderate 8.99 low ± 3.3 Liming Drainage management New drainage No change Restoration 2 Done Not done Heavy Light None ± 1 Grazing 6..5 ±.77 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Water table Rising 36. Stable 58. Dropping ± 1.2 Burning None 33.3 Managed 33.3 Wildfire ±.85 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 2.4 Anerobic ±.4 Scenario 1: Stewardship 37

Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseline) 3. to.5 4..5 to 1 1 to 2 9. 2 to 2.5 1. 2.5 to 3.95 ±.

38 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Temperature increase (+ baseline) 3. to to 1 1 to to to 3.95 ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Peat_formation Active 76.1 Inactive ± 5.1 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 26.9 Stable 45.6 Decreasing ±.37 Peat decomposition high 79. moderate 11.6 low ± 3 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Done Not done Drainage management New drainage No change Restoration -1 Water table Rising Stable 12. Dropping ± 1.4 Scenario 2: Neglect Liming ±1 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Grazing Heavy Light 6. None.5 ±.77 Burning None 33.3 Managed 33.3 Wildfire ±.85 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 47.6 Anerobic ±.5 38

39 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Temperature increase (+ baseline) to.5.5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 98.4 Inactive ± 2.9 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 34.9 Stable 48.8 Decreasing ±.35 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 75.6 moderate 8.99 low ± 3.3 Liming Drainage management New drainage No change Restoration 2 Done Not done Heavy Light None ± 1 Grazing 6..5 ±.77 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Water table Rising 36. Stable 58. Dropping ± 1.2 Burning None 33.3 Managed 33.3 Wildfire ±.85 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 2.4 Anerobic ±.4 Scenario 1: Stewardship 39

40 Ecological Structure or Process Ecological Funcion or Capacity Service Benefit Driver (direct and indirect) Summer drought likely 6. unlikely ±.98 Temperature increase (+ baseline) to.5.5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to to ±.66 Diffuse pollution load Increasing Stable 4. Declining 4..2 ±.75 Rainfall amount Increase 3. Stable 6. Decrease 1..2 ±.6 Peat_formation Active 76.1 Inactive ± 5.1 Carbon balance for peat (t/ha/yr) Increasing 26.9 Stable 45.6 Decreasing ±.37 Carbon Offset Value ( /ha/yr) Value Peat decomposition high 79. moderate 11.6 low ± 3 Liming Drainage management New drainage No change Restoration -1 Done Not done Heavy Light None ± 1 Grazing 6..5 ±.77 NO2-Emissions CH4-Emissions Water table Rising Stable 12. Dropping ± 1.4 Burning None 33.3 Managed 33.3 Wildfire ±.85 Habitat type Heathland Mire Acid grassland Woodland Improved grassland Arable 2 Decomposition Type Newly aerobic Typically anerobic 47.6 Anerobic ±.5 Scenario 2: Neglect 4

41 Biophysical structure or process (e.g. woodland habitat or net primary productivity ) Limit pressures via policy action? Σ Pressures Function (e.g. (e.g. slow slow passage passage of of water, water, or or biomass) Service Service (e.g. (e.g. flood flood protection, protection, or or harvestable harvestable products) products) Marginal values How sensitive are benefit outputs to changes in ecosystem function? Benefit Benefit (e.g. contribution to (e.g. contribution to aspects of well being aspects of well being Value such as health and Value such as health and (e.g. willingness to pay safety) (e.g. willingness to pay safety) for woodland for woodland protection or for more protection or for more woodland, or woodland, or harvestable products) harvestable products) (after Haines Young and Potschin, 21) 41

42 They can help us describe how we believe the world is structured.. They allow us to combine different sorts of data They allow us to express scenarios systematically They help us bring evidence into the decision making arena, and express the uncertainties we have about it They are not dynamic models. They do no include feedback Challenges: How do we make them spatially explicit? 42

43 A sub global assessment following the framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Sponsored by Central Government Started June 29 ends January 211 Involves over 3 researchers, users and clients wcmc.org 43

44 How might ecosystems and their services in the UK change in the future under plausible scenarios? What are the future possible effects of changes in ecosystems on human well being and who might most be affected?

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to to to to 42.8 to to to to ± 7.2 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 49

50 To (26) 5 From (21)

51 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to to to to 42.8 to to to to ± 7.2 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 51

52 To (26) From (21) Plant carbon density, after Milne and Brown, (1997), per km2 52

53 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to to to to 42.8 to to to to ± 7.2 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 53

54 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to -2-2 to -1-1 to -5-5 to to 5 5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to ± 8 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 54

55 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to -2-2 to -1-1 to -5-5 to to 5 5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to ± 6.4 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 1 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 55

56 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to -2-2 to -1-1 to -5-5 to to 5 5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to ± 6.8 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 56

57 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to -2-2 to -1-1 to -5-5 to to 5 5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to ± 8.4 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 12 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 57

58 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A: Cover C1: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 Contexts E: Storage Change -5 to -2-2 to -1-1 to -5-5 to to 5 5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to ± 5.9 Arable ImGrass BL Conif Urban SemiNat Upland Water Coast Sea A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU B: Cover C: carbon storage to to to to ± 11 K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) Value Condition Characterise impacts via land cover change Scenarios change transition probabilities Lookup tables provide estimate of service change 58

J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed 33.3 33.3 33.3 F: Climate Future Low High 5.

2 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 33.3 33.3 33.3 7 ± 8.

G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected 5. 5. G1: R&D Investment High Low 5. 5. Green Brown H: LIfe_style 8.

59 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High ± 8.2 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High ± 8.2 D: CAP Agri Environment 25. Production subsidy 25. ES provision 25. None 25. G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style 8. A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemSservice BAU Making assumptions transparent 59

60 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High 6 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 8 D: CAP Agri Environment Production subsidy ES provision None G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemSservice BAU 6

61 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High 8 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 8 D: CAP Agri Environment Production subsidy ES provision None G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU 61

62 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High 8 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 8 D: CAP Agri Environment Production subsidy ES provision None G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU 62

63 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High 6 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 8 D: CAP Agri Environment Production subsidy ES provision None G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemService BAU 63

64 J: Trade barriers Open Paritial Closed F: Climate Future Low High D1: Food self sufficency Low Same High 7 D2: Energy self sufficency Low Same High 7 D: CAP Agri Environment Production subsidy ES provision None G: GM_Technology Accepted Rejected G1: R&D Investment High Low Green Brown H: LIfe_style A1: Scenario Biodiversity FreeMarket SelfSufficiency EcosystemSservice BAU 64

A1: Scenario Biodiversity A1: Scenario FreeMarket Biodiversity SelfSufficiency FreeMarket EcosystemService SelfSufficiency BAUEcosystemService BAU A: Cover Arable A: 35.8 Cover ImGrass Arable 22.435.

7 Cover26 ImGrass Arable 2.134.7 BL ImGrass 9.212.1 Conif BL 2.39.21 Urban Conif 11.32.3 SemiNat Urban 14.311.3 Upland SemiNat3.9914.3 Water Upland.443.99 Coast Water 1.41.44 SeaCoast 2.311.41 Sea 2.

5.1 2 to 13 to 24.1736. 3 to 25 to 39.784.17 3 to 12.9 5 ± 9.78 11 12.9 ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to E: -2Storage.59 Change -2-5 to -1 to -21.19.59-1-2 to -5to -19.411.19-5 to - to -5 42.89.

65 A1: Scenario Biodiversity A1: Scenario FreeMarket Biodiversity SelfSufficiency FreeMarket EcosystemService SelfSufficiency BAUEcosystemService BAU A: Cover Arable A: 35.8 Cover ImGrass Arable BL ImGrass Conif BL Urban Conif SemiNat Urban Upland SemiNat Water Upland Coast Water SeaCoast Sea 2.31 B: Cover26 Arable B: 34.7 Cover26 ImGrass Arable BL ImGrass Conif BL Urban Conif SemiNat Urban Upland SemiNat Water Upland Coast Water SeaCoast Sea 2.31 C1: carbon storage to 1C1: carbon 5.1 storage 1 to to to 13 to to 25 to to ± ± 11 C: carbon storage to 1C: carbon 5.1 storage 1 to to to 13 to to 25 to to ± ± 11 E: Storage Change -5 to E: -2Storage.59 Change -2-5 to -1 to to -5to to - to to -55 to to 1 to to 5 to to 15 to to ± ± 7.2 K: Change in value K: Change in value L: Change in Value ( ) ValueL: Change in Value ( ) Value

66 Biodiversity Ecosystem Service BAU Change in Carbon Storage Haines Young, Paterson and Potschin, in press 66

www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem A new paradigm? How do these production systems work?

67 A new paradigm? How do these production systems work? Analysis poses particular challenges because of their trans disciplinary nature BBNs offer one way of linking different knowledge domains... 67

68 Biophysical structure or process Function Service Service Benefit Benefit Value Value 68

69 69

70 SRES story line 1 MA 2 Natural England 1 EA Water Resources Strategy for England & Wales 2 Foresight Futures 3 Foresight Land use 4 UKCIP Socioeconomic scenario 5 UKCIP Climate Change Scenario 6 PSI BESEECH7 AFMEC Marine Scenario 8 Net Benefits 9 Global Global England E&W UK UK UK UK UK UK UK B1 Technogarden Connect for Life Sustainable behaviour Global Commons Leading the way Global Commons Low Emissions Global Responsibility Global Commons Green World B2 Adaptivemosaic Keep it Local Local Resilience Local stewardship Local Stewardship Medium Low Emissions Local Stewardship Local Stewardship A2 Order from Strength Succeed through Science Innovation Provincial Enterprise Valued service Fortress Britain Medium High Emissions National Enterprise Fortress Britain Fortress Europe A1 Global Orchestration Go for Growth Uncontrolled Demand World Markets Competition rules World Markets High Emissions World Markets World Markets Market World 7

Roy Haines-Young & Marion Potschin Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham

Roy Haines-Young & Marion Potschin Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham roy.haines-young@nottingham.ac.uk Elites Rational, evidence-based policy? Consent?