OVERVIEW
|
The Modelling Ecosystems Service Provisions and Demand theme’s goal is to advance conceptual approaches to, and actual modelling of, ecosystem services by:
Models can help us better understand when win-win outcomes might be possible and when trade-offs in certain management decisions might be necessary. Recognizing trade-offs in landscape management choices is important, but isn’t enough on its own. An often-overlooked aspect of landscape management is understanding who is impacted by trade-offs.
Connecting models to beneficiaries is critical for understanding equity impacts in management choices. Thus, while we develop better understanding of the structure, functioning, and interactions of the ecosystems upon which society depends, we are equally focused on how such changes impact people’s dependency, use, and enjoyment of the environment. |
|
Our work is being carried out at both national and landscape scales. Recognizing that there are different drivers, services, interactions, and beneficiaries across working landscapes, we apply approaches to better represent complex and locally-specific processes. At larger scales, we are developing common methods to address fundamental aspects of ecosystem complexity and to document how populations benefit from ecosystem service flows. These ecosystem service modeling advancements are being undertaken in collaboration across landscapes studied by ResNet, as well as with ResNet partners such as Statistics Canada, Ducks Unlimited, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
THEME 2 TEAM
Lael Parrott co-lead University of British Columbia 
Yiyi Zhang she/her phd student McGill University |
Brian Robinson co-lead McGill University |
Ehsan Pashanejad he/him PhD student University of British Columbia |
Gaëlle Mével she/her MASTER'S STUDENT McGill University |
Lilian Sales ALUM |
Hugo Thierry he/him aLUM |
PARTNER ORGANIZATION
FEATURED PUBLICATIONS
|
Landscapes - A Lens for Assessing Sustainability.
Dade MC, Bonn A, Eigenbrod F, Felipe-Lucia MR, Fisher B, Goldstein B, Holland R, Hopping K, Lavorel S, le Polain de Waroux Y, MacDonald GK, Mandle L, Metzger JP, Pascual U, Rieb JT, Vallet A, Wells GJ, Ziter CD, Bennett EM, Robinson BE. (2025)
Landscape Ecology. doi: 10.1007/S10980-024-02007-7 (accepted) |
|
Servicesheds connect people to the landscapes upon which they depend
Yiyi Zhang, Hugo Thierry, Lara Cornejo, Lael Parrott, Monique Poulin, Kate Sherren, Danika Van Proosdij, Brian Robinson. (2024)
Ecosystem services (ES) are benefits people receive from nature. To sustain these benefits, we need to spatially connect communities benefitting from specific ES with landscape features that generate the ES. A variety of process-based models support ES assessments by estimating the biophysical supply of ES that comes from landscapes. However, less attention has been given to how ES flow from landscapes to beneficiary groups.
|
|
Re-grounding cumulative effects assessments in ecological resilience
Allen, C and Parrott, L. (2024)
The objective of this article is to explore how Cumulative effects assessments (CEAs) can be reimagined through an ecological resilience lens to cultivate more integrated and holistic CEA practices. We provide a brief synthesis of CEA theory and practice, highlighting where reductionist, disciplinary, and siloed approaches prevail.
|
|
A functional connectivity approach for exploring interactions of multiple ecosystem services in the context of agricultural landscapes in the Canadian prairies
Pashanejad E, Fath B, Kharrazi A, Robinson BE, Parrot L. (2024).
This research aims to bridge this gap by investigating the functional connectivity among multiple ES, such as pollination, carbon storage, soil erosion control, wetland-based ES such as habitat provisioning and water storage capacity from marshes, swamps, and open water wetlands, and agricultural food production within a complex landscape.
|
|
Substitutability of natural and human capitals: lessons from a simple exploratory model
Rjeb JT, Bennett E, Robinson BE. (2023)
We created a simple simulation model to compare how different assumptions around the temporal dynamics and interactions between natural and human-derived capitals affect long-term outcomes of different management choices on ES provision. We found that the extent to which different capitals are substitutable in the long-term depends on how individual capitals change over time and how different capitals interact with each other, and that replicating the near-term function of natural capital does not necessarily mean human-derived capitals are a viable long-term substitute.
|
|
The application of semantic modelling to map pollination service provisioning at large landscape scales
Pashanejad E, Thierry H, Robinson BE, Parrott L. (2023). An integrated dynamic and spatial modelling framework is needed to address the complexities of pollination supply mapping at the landscape scale. The Artificial Intelligence for Environment and Sustainability (ARIES) framework is a collaborative, spatially explicit and integrated tool for ES assessment. We applied a set of high-resolution process-based pollination models within ARIES to represent landscape capacity to supply pollination by wild bees at the local scale in the Canadian prairies. We also developed a systematic approach to perform a global sensitivity analysis by using a surrogate model (Gaussian Process Regression) and variance-based sensitivity analysis for the selected uncertain key parameters of the model.
|
|
Property rights play a pivotal role in the distribution of ecosystem services among beneficiaries
Dade M, Bennett E, Robinson BE. (2022)
Property rights are fundamental institutions that set the rules for who is allowed to use, manage, and control natural resources. Though the literature on property rights over natural resources is well developed. However, our understanding of the ways by which property rights govern actors’ ability to obtain ecosystem services provided by these natural resources remains under-explored. Using the Adirondack Park, USA, as a case study, we develop a framework that pairs property rights theory with spatial analysis to show who can obtain ecosystem services across this landscape.
|
|
Facing the challenges of using place-based social-ecological research to support ecosystem service governance at multiple scales
Bennett E, Morrison P, Holzer JM, Winkler KJ, Fraser EDG, Green SJ, Robinson BE, Sherren K, Botzas-Coluni J, Palen W. (2021)
Considering ecosystem services (ESs) in conservation planning represents a growing interest in global standards. However, this task has been hindered by the complexity of the ecological and socio-economic attributes of ESs, and questions remain, such as how to incorporate the demand for ESs, and ensure equity among beneficiary groups. To successfully align conservation investments with local needs, we implemented the “serviceshed” concept (the geographical area where ecosystems deliver a service to a group of....
|
|
Next steps for ecosystem service models: integrating complex interactions and beneficiaries
Thierry H, Parrott L, Robinson BE. (2021)
In this paper, we first explore the recent state of science of ES modelling from the perspective of ES provision and delivery to the people that benefit from them. Second, we propose the addition of some essential aspects of complexity using the classic social–ecological system framework, crucial for developing models to inform pragmatic decision-making. Our propositions are illustrated using simplified examples inspired by sea otter conservation in the seascapes of British Columbia.
|