Geology topics

Kenneth J. Bagstad

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth J. Bagstad.

85 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

USGS2014

Market forces and technological substitutes cause fluctuations in the value of bat pest-control services for cotton

Critics of the market-based, ecosystem services approach to biodiversity conservation worry that volatile market conditions and technological substitutes will diminish the value of ecosystem services and obviate the “economic benefits” arguments for conservation. To explore the effects of market forces and substitutes on service values, we assessed how the value of the pest-control services provided by Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana) to cotton production in the southwestern U.S. has changed over time. We calculated service values each year from 1990 through 2008 by estimating the value of avoided crop damage and the reduced social and private costs of insecticide use in the presence of bats. Over this period, the ecosystem service value declined by 79% ($19.09 million U.S. dollars) due to the introduction and widespread adoption of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton transgenically modified to express its own pesticide, falling global cotton prices and the reduction in the number of hectares in the U.S. planted with cotton. Our results demonstrate that fluctuations in market conditions can cause temporal variation in ecosystem service values even when ecosystem function – in this case bat population numbers – is held constant. Evidence is accumulating, however, of the evolution of pest resistance to Bt cotton, suggesting that the value of bat pest-control services may increase again. This gives rise to an economic option value argument for conserving Mexican free-tailed bat populations. We anticipate that these results will spur discussion about the role of ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation in general, and bat conservation in particular.

PLoS ONE↗

USGS2014

Methodological developments in US state-level Genuine Progress Indicators: toward GPI 2.0

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has emerged as an important monetary measure of economic well-being. Unlike mainstream economic indicators, primarily Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the GPI accounts for both the benefits and costs of economic production across diverse economic, social, and environmental domains in a more comprehensive manner. Recently, the GPI has gained traction in subnational policy in the United States, with GPI studies being conducted in a number of states and with their formal adoption by several state governments. As the GPI is applied in different locations, new methods are developed, different data sources are available, and new issues of policy relevance are addressed using its component indicators. This has led to a divergence in methods, reducing comparability between studies and yielding results that are of varying methodological sophistication. In this study, we review the “state of the art” in recent US state-level GPI studies, focusing on those from Hawaii, Maryland, Ohio, Utah, and Vermont. Through adoption of a consistent approach, these and future GPI studies could utilize a framework that supports more uniform, comparable, and accurate measurements of progress. We also identify longer-term issues, particularly related to treatment of nonrenewable resource depletion, government spending, income inequality, and ecosystem services. As these issues are successfully addressed and disseminated, a “GPI 2.0” will emerge that better measures economic well-being and has greater accuracy and policy relevance than past GPI measurements. As the GPI expands further into mainstream policy analysis, a more formal process by which methods could be updated, standardized, and applied is needed.

Hawai'i;Maryl;Ohio;Utah;Vermont↗

USGS2014

The misconception of ecosystem disservices: How a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society

In their recent article, Shapiro and Báldi (2014) build on the long-running narrative of “ecosystem services and disservices” (e.g., Zhang et al., 2007 ; Lyytimäki et al., 2008), describing how nature yields both benefits and harms to society. These harms include crop pests, floods, landslides, wildfires, and zoonotic disease transmission, among others. While we agree with their argument that calculation of these harms is commonplace and corresponding quantification of benefits is needed, we feel the use of the concept of “ecosystem disservices” hampers, rather than helps, the development of an integrative and constructive dialogue about conservation and the complex interrelationships between humans and nature. Estimation of costs and benefits and their balancing as positives or negatives is a principal activity in economics; however, we fear that in this case the term “disservice” carries the wrong message for both science and society.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2014

Quantifying and valuing ecosystem services: An application of ARIES to the San Pedro River basin, USA

A large body of research exists that identifies and values ecosystem services - the benefits that ecosystems provide to humans (MA, 2005) - and their underlying ecological processes. However, the development of software decision support tools that integrate ecology, economics and geography that can be independently used within the public, private, academic and NGO sectors is a more recent phenomenon (Ruhl et al., 2007; Daily et al., 2009). Spurred by growing demand for more sophisticated analysis of the social and economic consequences of land management decisions, the US Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management (BLM) launched a pilot project with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to assess the usefulness and feasibility of ecosystem service assessment and valuation tools to provide inputs to decision-making. The project analysed ecosystem services in the US portion of the San Pedro River watershed, which includes the BLM-managed San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA), to improve the understanding of complex social and ecological relationships that transcend administrative divisions. The BLM manages some 99 million hectares, primarily in the western United States, and 283 million hectares of sub-surface mineral estate. BLM's multiple-use mission requires that it appropriately balance non-extractive uses such as habitat conservation, recreation and archaeological heritage protection and the extractive use of resources such as timber, oil and gas, coal, uranium, and other minerals.

Arizona↗

USGS2014

From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments

Ecosystem services mapping and modeling has focused more on supply than demand, until recently. Whereas the potential provision of economic benefits from ecosystems to people is often quantified through ecological production functions, the use of and demand for ecosystem services has received less attention, as have the spatial flows of services from ecosystems to people. However, new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems’ capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems. Our analysis includes five ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, riverine flood regulation, sediment regulation for reservoirs, open space proximity, and scenic viewsheds. Each ecosystem service is characterized by different beneficiary groups and means of service flow. Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use. With the exception of the carbon sequestration service, regions that actually provided services to people, i.e., connected to beneficiaries via flow paths, amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying services, i.e., all ecosystems across the landscape. These results offer a more complete understanding of the spatial dynamics of ecosystem services and their effects, and may provide a sounder basis for economic valuation and policy applications than studies that consider only theoretical service provision and/or use.

Washington↗

USGS2014

Social impact analysis: monetary valuation

This section provides basic guidance for using and conducting economic valuation, including criteria for judging whether valuation is appropriate for supporting decisions. It provides an introduction to the economic techniques used to measure changes in social welfare and describes which methods may be most appropriate for use in valuing particular ecosystem services. Rather than providing comprehensive valuation instructions,it directs readers to additional resources.More generally, it establishes that the valuation of ecosystem services is grounded in a long history of non-market valuation and discusses how ecosystem services valuation can be conducted within established economic theory and techniques.

Book chapter↗

USGS2013

National valuation of monarch butterflies indicates an untapped potential for incentive-based conservation

The annual migration of monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus ) has high cultural value and recent surveys indicate monarch populations are declining. Protecting migratory species is complex because they cross international borders and depend on multiple regions. Understanding how much, and where, humans place value on migratory species can facilitate market‐based conservation approaches. We performed a contingent valuation study of monarchs to understand the potential for such approaches to fund monarch conservation. The survey asked U.S. respondents about the money they would spend, or have spent, growing monarch‐friendly plants, and the amount they would donate to monarch conservation organizations. Combining planting payments and donations, the survey indicated U.S. households valued monarchs as a total one‐time payment of \$4.78–\$6.64 billion, levels similar to many endangered vertebrate species. The financial contribution of even a small percentage of households through purchases or donations could generate new funding for monarch conservation through market‐based approaches.

Conservation Letters↗

USGS2013

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Recent ecosystem services research has highlighted the importance of spatial connectivity between ecosystems and their beneficiaries. Despite this need, a systematic approach to ecosystem service flow quantification has not yet emerged. In this article, we present such an approach, which we formalize as a class of agent-based models termed “Service Path Attribution Networks” (SPANs). These models, developed as part of the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) project, expand on ecosystem services classification terminology introduced by other authors. Conceptual elements needed to support flow modeling include a service's rivalness, its flow routing type (e.g., through hydrologic or transportation networks, lines of sight, or other approaches), and whether the benefit is supplied by an ecosystem's provision of a beneficial flow to people or by absorption of a detrimental flow before it reaches them. We describe our implementation of the SPAN framework for five ecosystem services and discuss how to generalize the approach to additional services. SPAN model outputs include maps of ecosystem service provision, use, depletion, and flows under theoretical, possible, actual, inaccessible, and blocked conditions. We highlight how these different ecosystem service flow maps could be used to support various types of decision making for conservation and resource management planning.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2013

A comparative assessment of tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation

To enter widespread use, ecosystem service assessments need to be quantifiable, replicable, credible, flexible, and affordable. With recent growth in the field of ecosystem services, a variety of decision-support tools has emerged to support more systematic ecosystem services assessment. Despite the growing complexity of the tool landscape, thorough reviews of tools for identifying, assessing, modeling and in some cases monetarily valuing ecosystem services have generally been lacking. In this study, we describe 17 ecosystem services tools and rate their performance against eight evaluative criteria that gauge their readiness for widespread application in public- and private-sector decision making. We describe each of the tools′ intended uses, services modeled, analytical approaches, data requirements, and outputs, as well time requirements to run seven tools in a first comparative concurrent application of multiple tools to a common location – the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. Based on this work, we offer conclusions about these tools′ current ‘readiness’ for widespread application within both public- and private-sector decision making processes. Finally, we describe potential pathways forward to reduce the resource requirements for running ecosystem services models, which are essential to facilitate their more widespread use in environmental decision making.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2013

Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona

Although the number of ecosystem service modeling tools has grown in recent years, quantitative comparative studies of these tools have been lacking. In this study, we applied two leading open-source, spatially explicit ecosystem services modeling tools – Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) – to the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. We modeled locally important services that both modeling systems could address – carbon, water, and scenic viewsheds. We then applied managerially relevant scenarios for urban growth and mesquite management to quantify ecosystem service changes. InVEST and ARIES use different modeling approaches and ecosystem services metrics; for carbon, metrics were more similar and results were more easily comparable than for viewsheds or water. However, findings demonstrate similar gains and losses of ecosystem services and conclusions when comparing effects across our scenarios. Results were more closely aligned for landscape-scale urban-growth scenarios and more divergent for a site-scale mesquite-management scenario. Follow-up studies, including testing in different geographic contexts, can improve our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these and other ecosystem services modeling tools as they move closer to readiness for supporting day-to-day resource management.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2013

Tourism values for Mexican free-tailed bat ( Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana ) viewing

Migratory species provide diverse ecosystem services to people, but these values have seldom been estimated rangewide for a single species. In this article, we summarize visitation and consumer surplus for recreational visitors to viewing sites for the Mexican free-tailed bat ( Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana ) throughout the Southwestern United States. Public bat viewing opportunities are available at 17 of 25 major roosts across six states; on an annual basis, we estimate that over 242,000 visitors view bats, gaining over $6.5 million in consumer surplus. A better understanding of spatial mismatches between the areas where bats provide value to people and areas most critical for maintaining migratory populations can better inform conservation planning, including economic incentive systems for conservation.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗

USGS2012

Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona

This report details the findings of the Bureau of Land Management–U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot Study. This project evaluated alternative methods and tools that quantify and value ecosystem services, and it assessed the tools’ readiness for use in the Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking process. We tested these tools on the San Pedro River watershed in northern Sonora, Mexico, and southeast Arizona. The study area includes the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which has been a focal point for conservation activities and scientific research in recent decades. We applied past site-specific primary valuation studies, value transfer, the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) models to value locally important ecosystem services for the San Pedro River watershed—water, carbon, biodiversity, and cultural values. We tested these approaches on a series of scenarios to evaluate ecosystem service changes and the ability of the tools to accommodate scenarios. A suite of additional tools were either at too early a stage of development to run, were proprietary, or were place-specific tools inappropriate for application to the San Pedro River watershed. We described the strengths and weaknesses of these additional ecosystem service tools against a series of evaluative criteria related to their usefulness for Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking. Using these tools, we quantified gains or losses of ecosystem services under three categories of scenarios: urban growth, mesquite management, and water augmentation. These results quantify tradeoffs and could be useful for decisionmaking within Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Results are accompanied by a relatively high level of uncertainty associated with model outputs, valuation methods, and discount rates applied. Further guidance on representing uncertainty and applying uncertain results in decisionmaking would benefit both tool developers and those offices in using ecosystem services to compare management tradeoffs. Decisionmakers and Bureau of Land Management managers at the State-, district-, and field-office level would also benefit from continuing model improvements, training, and guidance on tool use that can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of the Interior. Tradeoffs were identified in the level of effort needed to parameterize and run tools and the amount and quality of information they provide to the decision process. We found the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, Ecosystem Services Review, and United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Services Toolkit to be immediately feasible for application by the Bureau of Land Management, given proper guidance on their use. It is also feasible for the Bureau of Land Management to use the InVEST model, but in early 2012 the process of parameterizing the model required resources and expertise that are unlikely to be available in most Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Application of past primary valuation is feasible, but developing new primary-valuation studies is too time consuming for regular application. Value transfer approaches (aside from the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit) are best applied carefully on the basis of guidelines described in this report, to reduce transfer error. The ARIES model can provide useful information in regions modeled in the past (Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington), but it lacks some features that will improve its usability, such as a generalized model that could be applied anywhere in the United States. Eleven other tools described in this report could become useful as the tools more fully develop, in high-profile cases for which additional resources are available for tool application or in case-study regions where place-specific models have already been developed. To improve the value of these tools in decisionmaking, we suggest scientific needs that agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey can help meet—for instance, development and support of data archives. Such archives could greatly reduce resource needs and improve the reliability and consistency of results. Given the rapid state of evolution in the field, periodic follow-up studies on ecosystem services tools would help to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies are kept up to date on new tools and features that bring ecosystem services closer to readiness for use in regular decisionmaking.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2012

Modelling ecosystem service flows under uncertainty with stochiastic SPAN

Ecosystem service models are increasingly in demand for decision making. However, the data required to run these models are often patchy, missing, outdated, or untrustworthy. Further, communication of data and model uncertainty to decision makers is often either absent or unintuitive. In this work, we introduce a systematic approach to addressing both the data gap and the difﬁculty in communicating uncertainty through a stochastic adaptation of the Service Path Attribution Networks (SPAN) framework. The SPAN formalism assesses ecosystem services through a set of up to 16 maps, which characterize the services in a study area in terms of ﬂow pathways between ecosystems and human beneﬁciaries. Although the SPAN algorithms were originally deﬁned deterministically, we present them here in a stochastic framework which combines probabilistic input data with a stochastic transport model in order to generate probabilistic spatial outputs. This enables a novel feature among ecosystem service models: the ability to spatially visualize uncertainty in the model results. The stochastic SPAN model can analyze areas where data limitations are prohibitive for deterministic models. Greater uncertainty in the model inputs (including missing data) should lead to greater uncertainty expressed in the model’s output distributions. By using Bayesian belief networks to ﬁll data gaps and expert-provided trust assignments to augment untrustworthy or outdated information, we can account for uncertainty in input data, producing a model that is still able to run and provide information where strictly deterministic models could not. Taken together, these attributes enable more robust and intuitive modelling of ecosystem services under uncertainty.

Conference Paper↗