LTER Network Synthesis Research

 

Understanding and Accounting for Ecosystem Goods and Services: Synthesizing Research across the Long-Term Ecological Research Network

 

Input to LTER Network Planning Grant to NSF

 

Matthew Wilson, Roelof Boumans, Steve Carpenter, Dan Childers, Robert Costanza, Ted Gragson, Morgan Grove, Craig Harris, Steve Hamburg, Chuck Hopkinson, Steward Pickett, and Austin Troy.

 

October, 2003

 

 

Rationale and Conceptual Framework

The concept of ecosystem goods and services is one that is inherently synthetic and trandisciplinary, bringing together both human and biophysical processes in one common, integrative framework. As the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recently summarized:

 

Humanity has always depended on the services provided by the biosphere and its ecosystems. Further, the biosphere is itself the product of life on Earth. The composition of the atmosphere and soil, the cycling of elements through air and waterways , and many other ecological assets are all the result of living processes—and all are maintained and replenished by living ecosystems. The human species, while buffered against environmental immediacies by culture and technology, is ultimately fully dependent on the flow of ecosystem services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, p. 1).

 

Viewed in this light, the concept of ecosystem goods and services offer a compelling foundation for the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network to take an international leadership role by using the concept to foster cutting edge synthesis science between its participating sites and the scientists who operate within and beyond the network.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 1: an integrated framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services, including consideration of ecological structures and processes, land use decisions, human welfare and the feedbacks between them. (Source: Wilson et. Al. 2003).

 

The concept of ecosystem goods and services is appealing for three fundamental reasons.

1.     It links human and ecological systems together in a viable theoretical framework that has been tried and tested within the international scientific peer community.

2.     It adheres to rigorous scientific standards established by a steadily growing international network of scientists and researchers from both the social and biogeophysical sciences.

3.     It is a concept that is easily grasped and understood by non-scientist collaborators and stakeholders who work with LTER sites, thereby allowing us to reach beyond pure academic research to the communities where we work.

 

In short, we envision that the concept of ecosystem goods and services will provide a common foundation from which several synthetic and collaborative research projects will emerge within the LTER network (see, for example LTER Initiative VI: Engineered/Designed Ecosystems by Gross and Childers). And because the concept itself is inherently synthetic—linking ecosystem processes with human well being--we have observed in our own research efforts that both physical and social scientists express a willingness to champion ecosystem service related research projects that could support and sustain the ‘decade of synthesis’ vision now being espoused by the network office.

 

Yet, the question remains: if funded, what would synthetic LTER research projects that were specifically focused on ecosystem goods and services actually look like? Below, we summarize a few ideas and images that were collaboratively derived from a recent workshop of LTER scientists held at the All Scientists Meeting on Saturday, September 20, 2003 in Seattle, WA.

 

Example Research Questions:

  1. Within the LTER network, how have human stressors and landscape transformations affected ecosystem goods and services and their underlying ecological support systems over time?

 

  1. What special adaptations and management needs are demanded for the sustainable delivery of ecosystem goods and services by complex systems that are themselves subject to uncertainties, nonlinearities, and irreversibilites?

 

  1. Are there optimal spatial and temporal scales for observing, monitoring and managing the delivery of different ecosystem goods and services?

 

  1. How do ecosystem goods and services and their underlying ecological support systems respond to anthropogenic stressors? Are some goods and services more resilient to stress than others?

 

Proposed Synthesis Methods and Data Collection

Ecosystem processes and services are best expressed and most easily studied at particular spatial and temporal scales (see Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Many goods and services also tend to exhibit a ‘characteristic scale’—the typical extent or duration over which processes have their impact. For example, food production is often a localized service of an ecosystem and changes tend to occur on a short time cycle. Freshwater regulation and supply tends to be a regional service and changes occur on a monthly or seasonal cycle. Climate and gas regulation takes place at continental or global scales and occurs over decades to centuries.

 

This proposal leverages the unique context of the LTER scientific network, spanning as it does, multiple spatial, socioeconomic, and temporal scales. As an example, we have identified a core set of LTER sites that might serve as the empirical nexus for ‘between site’ and ‘within site’ comparisons:

 

Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES)

North Temperate Lakes (NTL)

Plum Island Ecosystems (PIE)

Central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP)

Coweeta LTER (CWT)

Kellogg Biological Station (KBS)

Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE)

Hubberd Brook Ecosystem Study (HBES)

 

Possible Thematic ‘between site’ comparisons:

  1. Impacts of Urbanization/Suburbanization (BES; PIE; HBES; CWT; CAP)
  2. Water Regulation and Supply (FCE; CAP; NTL; PIE)
  3. Agricultural Transformation (KBS; NTL; CWT; PIE)

 

Possible ‘within site’ comparisons (All participating sites):

  1. Time series comparisons 1930-present
  2. Land cover types and ecosystem service delivery
  3. Scale dependence of ecosystem services within sites
  4. Role of human stressors and disturbance on ecosystem service delivery

 

To facilitate these comparisons, we have identified several existing core LTER datasets that can be leveraged as well as listing a few new data sets that could be used to augment the cross-site data reservoir.

 

Required Data Sources:

  1. Historic land cover data from 1930-present; including satellite enhanced imagery and GIS data coverages.
  2. Census data collected at the Census tract and Census Block Group level. Data would include variables like population density; household income etc.
  3. Property Market values—parcel specific data from 1930-present.
  4. Biophysical indicators of stress and disturbance—i.e., nitrogen deposition.
  5. Non-market valuation database

 

LTER Synthesis Science Activities Supported

Taken together, the image of a synthetic, cross-site research program focused on the concept of ecosystem goods and services is one that powerfully compliments the overall goal of the LTER network to understand ecological systems and their interactions with human systems. We envision that several potential synthesis science activities will be supported by this crosscutting research theme of ecosystem services:

 

  1. The opportunity for LTER scientists to participate in the development and implementation of a truly synthetic research concept that has gained increasing recognition from the international scientific community yet remains to be tested ‘in the field’.
  2. Lasting partnerships between biogeophysical and social scientists will be formed as they work together to form a shared understanding of the interrelationships between natural ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services over time.
  3. The project will facilitate the synthetic integration of core LTER datasets (social and biogeophysical) as well as provide opportunities for the augmentation of these datasets with new data that crosscuts the physical and social sciences.
  4. Multiple cross-site and cross-scale opportunities for collaborative research will be created for senior, mid-career and junior scientists as well as providing opportunities for postdoctoral researchers and students in partner universities.
  5. The ecosystem goods and services theme will provide ample opportunities for stakeholder outreach and policy implications for managing ecosystems that are subject to human stressors.

 

Other LTER Planning Grant efforts that could be effectively linked with the Understanding and Accounting for Ecosystem Goods and Services Research Theme:

 

(1) Report by Initiative VI workshop: Engineered/Designed Ecosystems. Linking the issue of managed ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services. Here the joint task will be to enhance the valuation of ecosystem goods and services in designed ecosystems.

 

(2) Report by Research Initiative IV workshop: Coupled Human-Natural Ecosystems. Linking the role of social and biogeophysical scientists in a “focused” research area.

 

 

 

Sources Cited:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A framework for Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.

Wilson, M.A. Troy, A. and Costanza, R. (In Press). The Economic Geography of Ecosystem Goods and Services. Ch. 4 in Dietrich, M. and Van der Straaten (eds.) Cultural Landscapes and Land Use. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.