Line of Enquiry 3: the tools to support a framework

The US National Research Council (2009, p. 34) says at the core of effective decision support is ‘making scientific knowledge useful for practical decision making’.

Nowadays there is limited distinction between what a tool is to ‘communicate’ ecosystem services and what a tool is to ‘assess’ ecosystem services due to advance digital technology and social media. In this research the term decision support tools

(tools) is therefore used very broadly to include any significantly tangible product developed through a program to coordinate, document and distribute knowledge; assess, monitor and evaluate changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services; peer review information and tools produced; describe the program; report on how objectives and obligations of the program have been met; and to provide users access to the

information and tools (the framework) developed.

Similar to the Lines of Enquiry into processes and information Line of Enquiry 3 (LoE 3) looks beyond what is documented in the literature on tools and analyses drivers influencing and shaping their adoption; and any interconnections between the process of developing frameworks and the information included in them. Through this deepened understanding of the choices made to adopt or develop certain tools (or not), we can better determine without supposition the tools required to support a framework for ecosystem services assessments across multiple scales. From the literature reviewed in Chapters 1 and 2 four key topics relating to tools were identified for further analysis:

 conceptual frameworks;  maps and dynamic models;  scenarios; and

 websites and technical reports.

The MA (2005a, p. 34) states ‘given the complex interactions between ecosystems and human well-being, a prerequisite for both analysis and action is agreement on a basic

conceptual framework’. The MA’s conceptual framework shown as Figure 2.2 builds on

the commonly used DPSIR framework by including feedback loops and assessments across multiple temporal and spatial scales (Ash et al. 2010). No reference is made to temporal and spatial scales in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 presenting the conceptual frameworks of TEEB (2010) and CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010a). Biodiversity, a key feature of the MA (2005a) and TEEB (2010) conceptual frameworks, is also not explicitly incorporated in CICES. Many other schools of

thought did not make use of a conceptual framework at all. Requiring further research is the varied importance given to conceptual frameworks across programs and the lack of agreement on what the conceptualisation should represent.

The use of scenarios as a tool ‘to explore possibilities for the future that cannot be predicted by extrapolation of past and current trends’ is becoming more common in ecosystem services assessments (IPCC 2000; MA 2005c, p. 225). From the documents reviewed scenario use was most prominent at the global scale. The MA (2005c) ran four scenarios focusing on global cooperation, the breakdown of global cooperation,

balancing different forms of capital, and working with nature. The IPCC used scenarios to describe consistently the relationships between demographic, economic and

technological forces driving future greenhouse gas and sulphur emissions and their evolution (IPCC 2000). In Maynard and Cork‘s (2011) review of local to regional scale ecosystem services programs in Australia, Binning et al. (2001) was the only program that used scenarios. As the benefits of scenario use at different scales is not well demonstrated, the use of scenarios is identified for further research.

The literature shows both maps and dynamic models have been used to: identify, measure and value ecosystems and ecosystem services in terms of human well-being (Troy and Wilson 2006; Maynard et al. 2010; Petter et al. 2012; Crossman et al. 2013;

74

ecosystem service provision (MA 2005a; UK NEA 2011b); and the environmental, social and economic implications of trade-offs in terms of the distribution of the costs and benefits derived from ecosystem service use (Binning et al. 2001; Troy and Wilson 2006; Raymond et al. 2009; Segan et al. 2011; Sherrouse et al. 2011; Vogl et al. 2013; Sharp et al. 2014). Maps aim to improve knowledge and assist decision making by constructing and coordinating information into a simplified visual form. The primary data used in the MA for identifying the extent and condition of ecosystems were maps derived from remote sensing and GIS, primarily satellite imagery ranging from 10m – 8km resolution (MA 2005a).

In the Australian studies reviewed, maps were used by all local to regional scale programs except Wallace (2007) whose primary focus was on the development of a classification for ecosystem services (Maynard and Cork 2011). In contrast, although there is now a large range of spatially dynamic models available for use none of the local to regional scale programs in Australia used these as a tool. The MA (2005e, p. 48) states ‘dynamic models are required to describe interactions among components of the system’ (i.e. biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being)’ and ‘examine assumptions and responses to driving forces’. Bagstad et al. (2013) and Crossman et al. (2013) confirm there is an inconsistent use of maps and models to assess ecosystem services globally. The inclusion of maps and dynamic models in ecosystem services frameworks is further researched under this Line of Enquiry.

Stages of the MA’s framework development, details of the program, and outcomes of assessments were primarily recorded on websites and in reports. Five technical reports (book volumes) each ranging from 399 pages to 918 pages were developed. TEEB also produced a large technical book describing their methodology (TEEB 2010). Synthesis and summary publications were produced for both programs (MA 2005f; TEEB 2009). The MA and TEEB and most other large scale programs (e.g. CICES and SEEA) made high use of a website to house information and tools. In contrast, at local to regional scales in Australia documentation of the framework and the program was primarily through fact sheets, conference proceedings, project reports and journal articles. Only one program had a dedicated website at the time of writing Maynard and Cork (2011); and no programs produced large technical reports or books. The variance in stakeholder access to information on programs through websites and reports requires further

This completes the document review into processes, information and tools underpinning methodologies for ecosystem services assessments. The three Lines of Enquiry, sub- questions and key topics are used to maintain focus and structure in the rest of this research whilst addressing the central research question; and ensure this research builds on an existing body of knowledge on ecosystem services assessment methodologies. For a more in-depth analysis of methodologies beyond that reported in literature three programs developing frameworks (i.e. SEQ, US and the UK) are analysed in the following chapters. The approach to analysing these methodologies beyond the use of document reviews is the topic of the following section.