Environmental classes

Environmental classes are “a broader classification of ecological components aimed at better encompassing abiotic elements (such as atmosphere and groundwater)

contributing to ecosystem service provision and that are not captured by other categories of units (such as ecosystems and those in the MA’s Reporting Categories)”.

Environmental classes are “generally mappable from satellite remote sensing and are easily derived from national Land Cover or other existing datasets”. Although neither groundwater nor atmosphere ‘is mappable from satellite platforms, other mapped resources are available to characterise them at broad spatial scales’ (Landers and Nahlik 2013, p. 3). Three environmental classes (aquatic, terrestrial and atmosphere) are further refined into 15 environmental sub-classes (Landers and Nahlik 2013). Landers and Nahlik (2013, p. 5) state:

The scale at which the Environmental Sub-Classes is developed is intended to present a comprehensive but manageable organisation of environmental boundaries. Nevertheless, the scale at which Environmental Sub-Classes are presented … can easily be increased or decreased depending on the specific objectives of the user.

Outside of the wetland and coral reef demonstration projects there is “no standard approach to the ecological units assessed across the ESRP”. The type of ecological unit applied or assessed (e.g. in place-based studies) is “dependent on the particular problem or issue being addressed”. As the environmental classes were in the final stages of development at the time of conducting this research they were not formally incorporated in the US framework and little explanation of these was provided in any EPA literature. Section 5.2.3 describes ecological processes, ecosystem functions and intermediate services as applied in the framework.

5.2.3 Ecological processes

Under the list of General Terms in the Lexicon, ‘ecological processes’ are defined as a characteristic physical, chemical and/or biological activity that influences the flow, storage and/or transformation of materials and energy within and through ecosystems

(EPA 2010b, p. 17).The term ‘ecosystem function’ is not defined within the Lexicon or used in the program. However, again under General Terms ‘intermediate services’ is defined as components of nature that are not directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being, but which are important for the production of final ecosystem services (EPA 2010b, p. 24).

As can be seen by the definition of ecological processes and intermediate services these terms are not interchangeable. In the US framework intermediate services are

anthropocentric and only exist if underpinning the provision of a FEGS (see Section 5.2.4). Although the ESRP defines intermediate services there is no further information, examples or lists of intermediate services in the program. The reason for this is:

… the focus is on the FEGS and the specific ecological processes and intermediate services may be unknown or poorly known. The intermediate services reside, therefore, in the domain of the ecological process modellers

158

who have the task of understanding the workings of the ecosystems that produce the FEGS through the complex interactions of the intermediate services. By focusing on the FEGS, we can then efficiently identify and understand those intermediate services that are essential to FEGS

production. This is certainly a more efficient way of addressing ecological understanding as opposed to attempting to understand all intermediate services and processes.

The following section describes more of the FEGS concept.

5.2.4 Ecosystem services

The Lexicon developed to encourage a consistent use of terms across the ESRP says ecosystem services are derived from the structural components of ecosystems and the complex interactions between these components. However, it expands on this concept by specifying indirect and direct ecosystem services and recognising the needs of future generations. In both the Core Terms and the General Terms, the Lexicon defines

‘ecosystem services’ as (EPA 2010b, p. 4, 20):

...outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly (final ecosystem services) or indirectly (intermediate ecosystem services) contribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the future - often abbreviated as ecosystem services.

The General Terms in the Lexicon also defines ‘FEGS’. This definition was based on the FES concept developed by Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) aimed at advancing the development of environmental accounting and performance systems. Four Leads working in mapping, modelling, well-being and place-based studies were asked: are FEGS and the Lexicon definition consistently used across the program? All four respondents said “there was variability, but all were on the same path”.

To confirm which definition(s) were applied across the ESRP and any consistency, nine Leads were asked: what is the definition of ecosystem services you use in your

research? Four respondents provided definitions that described benefits or values similar to that of the MA (2005a). Another said there are two definitions of ecosystem

services they relate to. The first is the definition developed by the MA, the second definition relates to FEGS. Three Leads provided modified FEGS definitions. One respondent stated FEGS are "an indicator of something people care about and ... the ecosystem structures and functions that support these different services”. Based on the Lexicon definition and the responses by Leads, FEGS are interpreted as:

 FEGS are "biophysical components or attributes" of ecosystems "that people care about";

 a biophysical component or attribute can be an intermediate service or FEGS depending on what people care about;

 FEGS are the "final" biophysical components or attributes of ecosystems that people (beneficiaries) interact with;

 a "specific beneficiary" is required for a FEGS to be recognised - "individuals can be made up of one or more beneficiary".

To further identify comparable information and attributes for possible synthesis,

integration, aggregation and up/down-scaling across the program, Leads working on the ecosystem services classification system, mapping and modelling, and well-being components of the framework were asked: is there a list of ecosystem services you all use across the ESRP (i.e. in the ecosystem and place-based studies and to develop decision support tools)?. “No, there was never any consistency across the program”. “We spent a lot of time talking about developing that consistent list that everyone would subscribe to but that never happened”. This however contradicts the MYP 2008-2014 (EPA 2008, p. 6) which provides a ‘list of ecosystem services the ESRP will focus’ on.

Column 4 in Appendix 8 lists the ecosystem services/FEGS assessed across the ESRP (and the MA, SEQ and UK programs). As no definitive list of services was used across the overall program, for the purpose of this research documents, websites, presentations and comments from interviews were compiled to develop this list. Twenty-three

ecosystem services were being assessed across the major projects within the ESRP. One Lead said those in the place-based studies were provided the option to “assess

whichever services they felt feasible as long as it fitted the ESRP definition of ecosystem services”.

160

Although all respondents agreed there was variation in the ecosystem services assessed across the program, all projects assessed the supply or provision of water for people. Habitat, clean air and food production were the next most commonly assessed. The variation in services assessed across place-based studies was driven by their different contexts (which also drove the choice of scenarios). Developing a definitive list of ecosystem services (i.e. a common classification) is now a focus within the ESRP. This new focus was raised and strongly supported by many Leads interviewed. Discussed below is how the value of ecosystem services was incorporated in the US framework.

5.2.5 Determining the value of ecosystem services

A report prepared by SAB recommended to the EPA Administrator that the EPA should improve ecological valuation at the agency; the focus being on "all ecological effects that people believe are important, not simply those effects that are easiest to value" (EPA 2006, p. i). To determine the method of valuation incorporated in the framework one Lead was asked: is the ESRP valuing ecosystem services in both economic and well- being terms? The response was “yes, although the human health and well-being

component would not be a prominent part of the program the ESRP maintained a small research effort in this area”.

Previously discussed in Section 5.1.3 were the qualifications held by ESRP Leads. Appendix 3 listing these qualifications shows limited social science and economic training held in the program, hence I asked: who is doing the dollar valuation of ecosystem services for the ESRP? Because money was limited for this area of the program it was said to be difficult to engage with other areas of the agency (e.g. the National Centre for Economics, the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Water) where most the economists are positioned. All areas of the program, however, have “tried to have an economist” on board either internally or externally to assist with valuations. As the focus of this analysis is on the development of the national scale methodology and “dollar valuations are being conducted within the place-based projects rather than at the national scale”, it is beyond the scope of this research to discuss all the valuations conducted within the five place studies.

Although the MYP 2008-2014 introduces the term 'human health and well-being endpoints' it does not define or provide a list of these, only examples such as 'physical

fitness, mental health and neighbourhood stability' (EPA 2008, p. 24). The Lexicon does, however, provide the following definition of ‘human well-being’ under Core Terms (EPA 2010b, p. 5):

… broadly, the condition of humans and society, defined in terms of the basic material needs for a good life, freedom and choice, health, wealth, social relations and personal security. In economics, the term is often used interchangeably with social welfare [although the definition provided here is broader than the standard economic definition].

The condition of humans and society as defined in the Lexicon are similar to the COWB developed for the MA (Figure 1.1). The MYP 2008-2014 states ecosystem services need to be characterised by human health and well-being (HHWB) across the whole program. The ESRP recognises assigning values to ecosystem services (i.e. classifying and

quantifying HHWB endpoints) is required in order to compare these values to the costs and benefits of environmental protection activities (EPA 2008). The MYP 2008-2014 states the proposed research on HHWB will build on EMAP research into the condition of ecosystems and how this relates to ecosystem functioning and the delivery of services (EPA 2008). It will take the findings of this condition research and characterise the societal implications on HHWB (EPA 2008).

In the US framework 'human health' and 'well-being' are separated into two research projects. Recognising this was a variation from most other programs four Leads were asked: human health and well-being are separated in the title of your program, why is this so and what are your thoughts on this separation? All respondents agreed that HHWB were "one" sitting under the "well-being umbrella" (i.e. health is a component of experiencing well-being). The separation in the program was attributed to:

 the structure of the EPA - for many years ORD had people working on ecology and another group on human health; “the health group does not do well-being - they do human health (toxicology, cancer studies and exposure studies)”;

 the separation of the topics provided acknowledgement of previous research;

 teasing out the health component had advantages; "people are going to respond to mortality and morbidity issues (e.g. obesity, asthma, premature mortality)";

162

 “the ESRP wanted to get to well-being in the end, of which human health is a piece”.

According to the MYP 2008-2014 the heath section will focus on the potential dis- benefits of ecosystems (e.g. Lyme disease) (EPA 2008). It will also focus on the disruption to ecosystem services by stressors (e.g. nitrogen) and human vulnerability from these disruptions (EPA 2008). “Information from the health section will feed into research nationally through the National Atlas and also in the place-based projects”. One Lead working on the health section of the program was asked: what type of information is required to conduct a health assessment? They responded:

… cancers, deaths, birth outcomes are always at the county scale … the county is just not fine scale enough when you’re looking at ecosystem things that may be happening in watersheds that may have to do with

biogeographic features like mountains or coastlines, counties just don’t nest that way. You can do area weighting but it’s just not as good as if you had … an address identified or even to our census. We have a census that takes data down to neighbourhood scale and if we could have better health data released at finer spatial scales that would really help this research go forward … and … more issues … not just deaths and … big problems like cancer, but, chronic illnesses that everybody is living with and that really reduce quality of life like depression and other mental health issues. Obesity … that’s another good one. There’s more to living than … there’s more to health than not dying. I don’t think we have enough attention paid to other aspects of poor health that we could relate to the environment. The big goal behind all of that is to really increase environmental intelligence in the ordinary person as well as health scientists … their acknowledgement or appreciation for the importance of a well-managed natural environment for our health.

One Lead working on the well-being section of the ESRP said their aim is to develop a human well-being index that will “become a predicted endpoint for a decision support tool that bundles relevant service flow measures from capital-based modules”' (e.g. social capital, economic capital and natural capital). More specifically, it focuses on “those things that contribute positively to well-being as opposed to ill-being” (also

Smith et al. 2012). “This does not mean the program is necessarily trying to maximise well-being – but if considered on a continuum it tries to minimise ill-being as a goal, or keep it from reaching its tipping point”.

Two Leads working on the well-being component were asked: what type of information is required to conduct a well-being assessment? The “elements” of well-being were identified as “environmental, economic and societal” (also Smith et al. 2012). The "Canada Index of Wellbeing was the key piece of literature applied in this research, other important pieces included the General Social Survey, the Gallop Survey, National Education Statistics, American Time Use Surveys, Labour Statistics and the Census Bureau". A set of “criteria” was developed “to evaluate what a perfect set of indicators would look like”. In areas where there were large gaps in information it was recognised indicators would need to be developed “which may include new questions in existing surveys”. The next stage was “applying professional opinion assigned as relative importance values and to rank data in conjunction with public perception to evaluate well-being in terms of the relationships among ecosystem services, domains and their constituent elements” (also Smith et al. 2012).

So, how often should information on HHWB be updated or reviewed? This was

considered “dependent on what you are trying to track as to how frequently and long it needs to be measured for, but generally speaking every five to 10 years”. Section 5.3 provides the outcomes of the third and final Line of Enquiry into the US methodology. It discusses the tools developed to conduct ecosystem services assessments,

communicate the outcomes, and the program.