MAES Delivery Workshop Using Ecosystem Services Mapping to Target Habitat Improvements

Transcription

1 MAES Delivery Workshop Using Ecosystem Services Mapping to Target Habitat Improvements 16 th December 2015 Alistair Whyte EcoCo LIFE Project Coordinator

2 The EcoCo LIFE project aims to improve ecological coherence within a 10,000km 2 area of Scotland by identifying the very best places to work to: improve habitat and species resilience and connectivity; contribute to wider ecosystem services; e.g. natural flood management, diffuse pollution, socio-economic benefits. and then delivering practical habitat works on the ground to achieve this.

3

4 Habitat Networks Identification of source areas Least-cost connectivity analysis to map networks Low, medium and high dispersal distances

5 Habitat Networks Opportunity Areas Identification of source areas Least-cost connectivity analysis to map networks Low, medium and high dispersal distances Locations where an action is feasible Parameters include elevation, slope, land-use, proximity to water courses

6 Accessible nature Education Green travel Carbon storage Local climate regulation Air purification Noise regulation Water purification Pollination Ecosystem Services Habitat Networks Opportunity Areas Identification of source areas Least-cost connectivity analysis to map networks Low, medium and high dispersal distances Locations where an action is feasible Parameters include elevation, slope, land-use, proximity to water courses

7 Accessible nature Education Green travel Carbon storage Local climate regulation Air purification Noise regulation Water purification Pollination The best place to work Ecosystem Services Habitat Networks Opportunity Areas Identification of source areas Least-cost connectivity analysis to map networks Low, medium and high dispersal distances Locations where an action is feasible Parameters include elevation, slope, land-use, proximity to water courses

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Ecosystem Services Service Environmental capacity indicators Regulatory demand and societal needs indicators Accessible nature Site accessibility, perceived naturalness Health, Index of Multiple Deprivation, likelihood of use Education Site accessibility, habitat diversity Number of young people, education, Index of Multiple Deprivation, distance from schools Green travel Perceived naturalness, access routes Cost distance from origin and destination travel locations. Carbon storage Carbon content per habitat All assumed to have demand Local climate regulation Cover of woodland Urban areas and domestic houses. Population at risk from heat events. Air purification Purification score per habitat Road type, sealed surfaces, population, health Index of Multiple Deprivation. Noise regulation Regulation score per habitat Predicted noise levels (cumulative), population, health Index of Multiple Deprivation Water purification Roughness score, slope angle Soil erosion risk, pollution risk, distance to water courses. Pollination Pollinator visitation likelihood Distance to arable, orchards and allotments.

17 How were these services chosen? Partner organisations can choose which services to focus on. Criteria used in developing the list of services included: Giving high priority to cultural and wildlife-related services as these are often neglected in ecosystem service assessments. Services were assessed on the likelihood that land management decisions may result in marginal change in human well-being. Services were only mapped where there was a logical link between natural environment capacity and the benefits to people at a local or regional scale.

18

19 Lessons learned/recommendations for LIFE projects Ecosystem services assessments need to be fit for purpose e.g. for EcoCo they need to tell us where the best place to work will be. Define scale of analysis at outset local/regional/national. Use readily available data to save time and funds. Use partner organisation skills, local knowledge and sensechecking to verify results. A broad-scale approach will be able to identify areas and should be able to indicate improvements, but more detailed assessments should be used for calculating offsets/compensation measures.

20 Acknowledgements The EcoCo LIFE ecological protocol has been developed by the EcoCo steering group, making use of a modified version of EcoServ-GIS, a GIS toolkit for mapping ecosystem services created by Jonathan Winn, who further developed it specifically for this project. EcoServ-GIS was initially funded by the Dame Mary Smieton Trust, The Wildlife Trust s Strategic Development Fund. The current stage of the project was funded by Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network with support from Scottish Wildlife Trust and North Lanarkshire Council. ecoserv-gis@outlook.com