Forgot your password?
Document Actions
Executive summary - Feb 2006
A short summary of working group objectives, products, tasks and timeline following Jan-Feb 2006 meeting.
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
A Synthetic Approach to the Science
Of Ecosystem Based Management
Working Group Meeting 1
Executive Summary
NCEAS, Santa Barbara, CA
January 30 – February 1, 2006
Overview
The goal of this group is to produce a modeling and decision support framework that can be used
in the implementation of marine ecosystem based management (EBM) in a coastal setting. We
are focused on modeling a set of ecosystem services within a decision support framework that
allows one to consider the outcomes of different management scenarios and meaningfully
evaluate ecological, social and economic tradeoffs associated with different courses of action.
We aim to produce a transparent and general process that is easy to use and to transfer to other
systems, but also to investigate specific examples for real case study systems.
The major products of our work will be (1) a system model(s) that captures key components,
linkages and feedbacks of the biological, social and economic systems that drive the delivery of
ecosystem goods and services of interest, (2) a valuation framework based on Total Economic
Value that defines the values placed on different ecosystem states by stakeholders and decision
makers in a utility function, and (3) a decision support framework that integrates the system
model and utility functions described above and allows the exploration of different scenarios of
management action.
Key cross-cutting issues
Spatial scales of ecological processes and management, scale mismatches between them,
and cross-scale linkages
Integration of disparate datasets collected at varying spatiotemporal scales
Coping with uncertainty in data, models, and valuation
The services
We will focus our modeling efforts on three sets of ecosystem services: seafood production,
recreation and ecotourism, and watershed services (including land use for coastal development,
water quality provisioning and regulation, etc.). These three main areas will be made more
specific for individual models and case studies.
1
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
The case studies
We tentatively plan to use the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Elkhorn Slough
(and perhaps one other ecosystem) as case studies. A subgroup focused on the question of how to
determine ecosystem boundaries will further refine the choice and definition of these working
group case studies over the next couple months. These two case studies were deemed appropriate
because of their nested spatial scales, the quality of data available, existing interest in EBM
within these areas and the agencies with jurisdiction, and the potential for collaboration and
cross-fertilization with the Packard-funded regional initiative at Elkhorn Slough. During the next
six months, members of the working group will gather existing empirical data on these potential
case studies and meet with managers from the areas to solicit their expertise and advice on key
management objectives, target ecosystem services, and critical ecosystem linkages for their
system.
Example questions:
How should the boundaries of ecosystems be defined? What constitute coherent, natural
units for management within Central California?
How do the ecosystem components, key drivers, management objectives, and governance
issues differ between an estuarine system and a more oceanic system?
What are the best techniques for integrating datasets that derive from diverse disciplines
and have been collected at varying resolutions and spatial scales? How can one account
for the joint uncertainties associated with integrated data layers and incorporate them into
models?
The system models
Two subgroups of the working group are working on developing approaches for modeling the
key components of the case study ecosystems. One group has started with a multispecies
bioeonomic model and will investigate various techniques for capturing the production of
ecosystem services with these sorts of models as a starting point. The other group is focused on
producing a system model that starts with the services, rather than with the ecosystem
components, taking a more aggregated approach (e.g. mass balance, trophic transfer models). At
the next working group meeting we will compare these different approaches and decide whether
they converge or can be combined (e.g. using different models for different scale questions) or
whether one approach is more promising than the other.
Example questions:
What is the appropriate level of aggregation (or detail) for modeling ecosystem dynamics
for EBM?
How might the choice of model affect management decision-making?
What kind of modeling framework is most appropriate for situations where data are
sparse?
2
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
The valuation framework
Another subgroup is developing a process based on Total Economic Value for integrating
empirical information on people’s revealed and stated preferences for particular ecosystem
properties and/or states of the ecosystem. This information will be used to create a valuation or
utility function (or set of functions, reflecting heterogeneity in valuation) that can be used in the
decision support framework outlined below. We will express all values for ecosystem goods and
services and ecosystem states in terms of dollars. We are currently seeking support for a graduate
intern to review the literature for existing information that can be used in this valuation.
Example questions:
How does heterogeneity in the value that people place on ecosystem goods and services
or the state of the ecosystem affect optimal decision making in marine EBM?
When and how does the method of determination of valuation affect the decision making
process?
The decision support framework
We have begun to develop a decision support framework that combines the valuation function
and system model(s) described above in the form of a nonlinear constrained optimization model.
This model allows one to solve for the optimal management action under various conditions and
to ask how much worse the outcomes of actions that deviate from the optimal solution might be
in terms of total economic value. We will use tools and techniques from standard decision theory
for this work, and will focus in particular on how system and decision uncertainty may affect
results.
Example questions:
Operating under uncertainty – what is the minimum set of data needed to use this
approach? Can it work when data are sparse?
3
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
Organizational Structure and Timeline
A flowchart of key tasks and subgroups is given on the next page and summarized in the table
below. We identified four subgroups who will divide up the work between now and the 2nd
working group meeting. Names in bold indicate subgroup leaders. Names in parentheses indicate
working group members who would like to be kept in the loop with subgroup activities.
Group Objective Members Tasks Time
1 Definition of ecosystem Bernardo, Carrie, 1. RM, CK, FM - Meet with Elkhorn Slough Feb/Mar/
boundaries for case Geoff, Dave, Steve, and MBNMS folks Apr
studies and data mining Ben, (Mike), Fio 2. CC, SG, DS, RM, BH, CK- Meet in SB
for system modeling with Group 3 Mar 8
3. Data mining
4. Decide on 2-3 spatial scales/case studies Mar-Jun
5. Get more concrete about particular issues Apr
of interest for ea case study Apr
2 Development of valuation Susanne, Kenny, 1. SM & CK - Draft position description for Feb
framework and data Carrie, Dan, Andy, grad intern
mining for economic Marc, Jim, Ana 2. Review NAS report on valuation Feb
valuation data Spalding? Andy’s 3. Hire grad intern Mar 1
student? Marc’s 4. Intern - Collect revealed & stated pref data Mar-Jun
students? 5. SM et al - Begin to develop methods for Mar-Jun
integrating data in utility fxn
6. CK - Contact Linwood Pendleton re: Feb
valuation data and methods for CA
7. DB & SM - Put together literature list Feb
8. Group conference call Late Mar
3 Development of finer Chris, Jim, Steve, 1. Develop generalized modeling approach Feb
scale system model and Dave, Rebecca, Ben, 2. CC, SG, DS, RM, BH, CK - Meet in SB Mar 8
decision framework Carrie, Marc, Fio, with Group 1 Feb-Apr
(Salvador), (Dan), 3. Start to write programs May-Jun
Marc’s students? 4. First model runs
4 Development of Andy, Mike, Susanne, 1. RM & CK (and groups 1&2) - Compile Mar-Jun
aggregated system model Carrie, Rebecca, data on biol, social and econ drivers
and decision framework (Salvador), (Dan), 2. CK, AR, FM meet in California June
Marc’s students? 3. AR, SM, MF - Try to write down system Feb-Mar
model in detail
4. CK & AR - Path analysis to identify key Mar-Apr
interactions and linkages
Upcoming Meetings
Subgroups on system modeling and defining ecosystem boundaries
March 8 Local members of groups 1&3 - Carrie, Ben, Bernardo, Dave, Steve,
Chris, and Becca - to meet in SB. Additional small group-meetings (at
UCSB and UNH) will be scheduled through spring-summer 2006
Next working group meeting
September 2006
4
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
Meeting participants
Fiorenza Micheli Stanford University Principal Investigator
Andy Rosenberg University of New Hampshire Principal Investigator
Carrie Kappel NCEAS Postdoctoral Fellow
Kenneth Broad University of Miami
Bernardo Broitman NCEAS
Dan Brumbaugh American Museum of Natural History/Natl. Marine Protected Areas Ctr.
Christopher Costello UC Santa Barbara
Michael J. Fogarty NOAA Fisheries
Steven D. Gaines UC Santa Barbara
Ben Halpern NCEAS
Salvador Lluch Cota CIBNOR
Marc Mangel UC Santa Cruz
Rebecca Martone Stanford University
Susanne Menzel University of York
Chato Osio University of New Hampshire
James N. Sanchirico Resources for the Future
Geoffrey G. Shester Stanford University
David A Siegel UC Santa Barbara
5
3/23/2006
A Synthetic Approach to the Science
Of Ecosystem Based Management
Working Group Meeting 1
Executive Summary
NCEAS, Santa Barbara, CA
January 30 – February 1, 2006
Overview
The goal of this group is to produce a modeling and decision support framework that can be used
in the implementation of marine ecosystem based management (EBM) in a coastal setting. We
are focused on modeling a set of ecosystem services within a decision support framework that
allows one to consider the outcomes of different management scenarios and meaningfully
evaluate ecological, social and economic tradeoffs associated with different courses of action.
We aim to produce a transparent and general process that is easy to use and to transfer to other
systems, but also to investigate specific examples for real case study systems.
The major products of our work will be (1) a system model(s) that captures key components,
linkages and feedbacks of the biological, social and economic systems that drive the delivery of
ecosystem goods and services of interest, (2) a valuation framework based on Total Economic
Value that defines the values placed on different ecosystem states by stakeholders and decision
makers in a utility function, and (3) a decision support framework that integrates the system
model and utility functions described above and allows the exploration of different scenarios of
management action.
Key cross-cutting issues
Spatial scales of ecological processes and management, scale mismatches between them,
and cross-scale linkages
Integration of disparate datasets collected at varying spatiotemporal scales
Coping with uncertainty in data, models, and valuation
The services
We will focus our modeling efforts on three sets of ecosystem services: seafood production,
recreation and ecotourism, and watershed services (including land use for coastal development,
water quality provisioning and regulation, etc.). These three main areas will be made more
specific for individual models and case studies.
1
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
The case studies
We tentatively plan to use the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Elkhorn Slough
(and perhaps one other ecosystem) as case studies. A subgroup focused on the question of how to
determine ecosystem boundaries will further refine the choice and definition of these working
group case studies over the next couple months. These two case studies were deemed appropriate
because of their nested spatial scales, the quality of data available, existing interest in EBM
within these areas and the agencies with jurisdiction, and the potential for collaboration and
cross-fertilization with the Packard-funded regional initiative at Elkhorn Slough. During the next
six months, members of the working group will gather existing empirical data on these potential
case studies and meet with managers from the areas to solicit their expertise and advice on key
management objectives, target ecosystem services, and critical ecosystem linkages for their
system.
Example questions:
How should the boundaries of ecosystems be defined? What constitute coherent, natural
units for management within Central California?
How do the ecosystem components, key drivers, management objectives, and governance
issues differ between an estuarine system and a more oceanic system?
What are the best techniques for integrating datasets that derive from diverse disciplines
and have been collected at varying resolutions and spatial scales? How can one account
for the joint uncertainties associated with integrated data layers and incorporate them into
models?
The system models
Two subgroups of the working group are working on developing approaches for modeling the
key components of the case study ecosystems. One group has started with a multispecies
bioeonomic model and will investigate various techniques for capturing the production of
ecosystem services with these sorts of models as a starting point. The other group is focused on
producing a system model that starts with the services, rather than with the ecosystem
components, taking a more aggregated approach (e.g. mass balance, trophic transfer models). At
the next working group meeting we will compare these different approaches and decide whether
they converge or can be combined (e.g. using different models for different scale questions) or
whether one approach is more promising than the other.
Example questions:
What is the appropriate level of aggregation (or detail) for modeling ecosystem dynamics
for EBM?
How might the choice of model affect management decision-making?
What kind of modeling framework is most appropriate for situations where data are
sparse?
2
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
The valuation framework
Another subgroup is developing a process based on Total Economic Value for integrating
empirical information on people’s revealed and stated preferences for particular ecosystem
properties and/or states of the ecosystem. This information will be used to create a valuation or
utility function (or set of functions, reflecting heterogeneity in valuation) that can be used in the
decision support framework outlined below. We will express all values for ecosystem goods and
services and ecosystem states in terms of dollars. We are currently seeking support for a graduate
intern to review the literature for existing information that can be used in this valuation.
Example questions:
How does heterogeneity in the value that people place on ecosystem goods and services
or the state of the ecosystem affect optimal decision making in marine EBM?
When and how does the method of determination of valuation affect the decision making
process?
The decision support framework
We have begun to develop a decision support framework that combines the valuation function
and system model(s) described above in the form of a nonlinear constrained optimization model.
This model allows one to solve for the optimal management action under various conditions and
to ask how much worse the outcomes of actions that deviate from the optimal solution might be
in terms of total economic value. We will use tools and techniques from standard decision theory
for this work, and will focus in particular on how system and decision uncertainty may affect
results.
Example questions:
Operating under uncertainty – what is the minimum set of data needed to use this
approach? Can it work when data are sparse?
3
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
Organizational Structure and Timeline
A flowchart of key tasks and subgroups is given on the next page and summarized in the table
below. We identified four subgroups who will divide up the work between now and the 2nd
working group meeting. Names in bold indicate subgroup leaders. Names in parentheses indicate
working group members who would like to be kept in the loop with subgroup activities.
Group Objective Members Tasks Time
1 Definition of ecosystem Bernardo, Carrie, 1. RM, CK, FM - Meet with Elkhorn Slough Feb/Mar/
boundaries for case Geoff, Dave, Steve, and MBNMS folks Apr
studies and data mining Ben, (Mike), Fio 2. CC, SG, DS, RM, BH, CK- Meet in SB
for system modeling with Group 3 Mar 8
3. Data mining
4. Decide on 2-3 spatial scales/case studies Mar-Jun
5. Get more concrete about particular issues Apr
of interest for ea case study Apr
2 Development of valuation Susanne, Kenny, 1. SM & CK - Draft position description for Feb
framework and data Carrie, Dan, Andy, grad intern
mining for economic Marc, Jim, Ana 2. Review NAS report on valuation Feb
valuation data Spalding? Andy’s 3. Hire grad intern Mar 1
student? Marc’s 4. Intern - Collect revealed & stated pref data Mar-Jun
students? 5. SM et al - Begin to develop methods for Mar-Jun
integrating data in utility fxn
6. CK - Contact Linwood Pendleton re: Feb
valuation data and methods for CA
7. DB & SM - Put together literature list Feb
8. Group conference call Late Mar
3 Development of finer Chris, Jim, Steve, 1. Develop generalized modeling approach Feb
scale system model and Dave, Rebecca, Ben, 2. CC, SG, DS, RM, BH, CK - Meet in SB Mar 8
decision framework Carrie, Marc, Fio, with Group 1 Feb-Apr
(Salvador), (Dan), 3. Start to write programs May-Jun
Marc’s students? 4. First model runs
4 Development of Andy, Mike, Susanne, 1. RM & CK (and groups 1&2) - Compile Mar-Jun
aggregated system model Carrie, Rebecca, data on biol, social and econ drivers
and decision framework (Salvador), (Dan), 2. CK, AR, FM meet in California June
Marc’s students? 3. AR, SM, MF - Try to write down system Feb-Mar
model in detail
4. CK & AR - Path analysis to identify key Mar-Apr
interactions and linkages
Upcoming Meetings
Subgroups on system modeling and defining ecosystem boundaries
March 8 Local members of groups 1&3 - Carrie, Ben, Bernardo, Dave, Steve,
Chris, and Becca - to meet in SB. Additional small group-meetings (at
UCSB and UNH) will be scheduled through spring-summer 2006
Next working group meeting
September 2006
4
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Science Frameworks for EBM
3/23/2006
Meeting participants
Fiorenza Micheli Stanford University Principal Investigator
Andy Rosenberg University of New Hampshire Principal Investigator
Carrie Kappel NCEAS Postdoctoral Fellow
Kenneth Broad University of Miami
Bernardo Broitman NCEAS
Dan Brumbaugh American Museum of Natural History/Natl. Marine Protected Areas Ctr.
Christopher Costello UC Santa Barbara
Michael J. Fogarty NOAA Fisheries
Steven D. Gaines UC Santa Barbara
Ben Halpern NCEAS
Salvador Lluch Cota CIBNOR
Marc Mangel UC Santa Cruz
Rebecca Martone Stanford University
Susanne Menzel University of York
Chato Osio University of New Hampshire
James N. Sanchirico Resources for the Future
Geoffrey G. Shester Stanford University
David A Siegel UC Santa Barbara
5