Polyscape: a negotiation support toolkit for management of ecosystem services that connects farmers to landscapes

1. Polyscape
Tim Pagella, Fergus Sinclair, Eric
Opiya

2. Spatial dimensions of ecosystem services
Ecosystem services often involve stocks and flows of material
or individuals across landscapes:
water, soil, carbon, organisms
Generation Reception
Haines-Young, 2009
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M., (2009). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being.

3. Mapping requirements for assessing ecosystem service
requirements (Pagella and Sinclair, in review. Landscape Ecology)

4. 50% of studies in last
two years
National scale
Landscape scale
over 1000 km2 but sub-national
Local scale.
immediate landscape scales (10-1000
km2)
Snapshots rather than
changes to ecosystem
service provision?
Little evidence of
participatory map
development
What methodologies are available now?
Flow
Pathways?

5. Fitness of mapping tools for managing
ecosystem service provision
• Large scale, coarse resolution
– Can’t link field and farm decisions to ES
• Few ecosystem services mapped, little explicit
treatment of interactions amongst them
• Arbitrary geographical boundaries that focus on
generation
– Ignore reception
– Different ES may need different boundaries
• Stakeholders rarely participating in map generation
– ES providers
– Intermediaries
– ES receivers

6. Boundaries

7. Polyscape - a multiple criteria GIS toolbox
• Designed as a negotiation tool not as a prescriptive
model
• Works at local scales with resolution appropriate for
field decisions considering small (10 km2) to medium
(1000 km2) landscape contexts
• Embraces the reality of ‘data sparse’
environments, using national scale digital
elevation, land use/cover and soil data in the first
instance

8. Participation and Knowledge Exchange

9. Sources of data
Data set Type Resolution Notes
CCW 1980s Phase 1 Land use 10m2
Data drawn from
field survey 1980s
CCW 2009
Phase 1
Land use 5m2
Remote sensed data
2009.
NSRI Soilscapes Soil 1 km2 Farewell et al., 2011
OS Land PROFILE DTM 10m2
EA Flood risk Flood risk Im2-10m2
Uses DTM and
LIDAR
Core and Focal
Habitat Network
Habitat
network
20m2 Watts et al., 2008

10. What single layer colours mean?
Areas with priority for
maintaining current land use
Areas with moderate or
unknown potential for land use
change
Areas with high priority for land
use change
High
Moderate
Moderate
High

11. Farm productivity layer (Pontbren)
• The base layer (represents farmer’s livelihood)
• Difficult to represent all decisions
(idiosyncratic behaviour)
• Inputs are digital elevation, soil type, and
critical slope values
• The algorithm categorises land value
according to its degree of
waterlogging, fertility and slope

12. Farm productivity layer – Marginal land identified in green – make interventions on
wet and sloping areas not flat and dry (red); much of the catchment negotiable (orange).

13. Woodland habitat connectivity at Pontbren
Plant trees to enlarge existing woodland networks (green); not where there
are trees or other key habitats already (red); large area where farmers may
wish to plant trees that have low habitat value (orange)
© CCW

14. Water regulation map for Pontbren
Opportunities for tree planting because high flow (grassland with > 500 m2 contribution, green);
Moderate Flow 100 – 500 m2; negligible flow, with <100 m2 contribution (orange); already has
trees or other flow sinks (red).

15. Combining layers in Polyscape
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1
2+
= 1
Layer A
Layer B
Combined layer
Numerical score allocated to each zone
Additive approach taken to combining layers
Example
Trade-off layer

16. Combining layers in Polyscape
-1
2+
= -1
Layer A
Layer B
Combined layer
1. A ‘Conservative’ approach:
-1
2+
= 2
Layer A
Layer B
Combined layer
2. A ‘Opportunistic’ approach:
What trade-off layer colours mean?

17. Agriculture Surface runoff Habitat connectivity
Trade off maps
Pontbren (1000 ha)
Trade offs - Pontbren

18. Basic soil fertility
map – based on
NSRI Soilscape
data
The Elwy Catchment - 230 km2
Issues with water quality/ sediment loads

19. Agricultural impact – farmers bravado
Slope threshold 15o

20. Agricultural impact – farmer reality?
Slope threshold 12o

21. Potential utilisation of marginal land?
Marginal land
not agriculture
8%
Woodland
48%
Marginal land
in agriculture
44%
Meirchion
Marginal land
not agriculture
22%
Woodland
16%
Marginal land in
agriculture
62%
Gallen

22. Based on 10m2 DTM
and 1980s land use
data.
Red areas indicate
sinks
(woodland, wetland
or depressions)
light green indicates
high flow areas
Water regulation - Elwy

23. Agri-environment schemes - Elwy

24. Using Google Earth to display Polyscape layers

25. Jeldu
Land use data does not
capture current tree cover
Google Earth

26. Old forested area on
steep slopes
converted to fields –
High erosionRiparian planting high
value for timber
25-40% of the tree material leaves the system for sale as fuel or fibre
Eucalyptus planted near
road infrastructure
No cultural services initially

27. Flat
Plateau
Steep valley sides
Road to Gojo
Pathways
River system

28. Road to Gojo
Originally forested, now rapidly
degrading wheat fields (high erosion)
Mosaic of Eucalyptus (especially near roads and
rivers), wheat (poorer farmers) and Potato
(wealthier farmers)

29. Road to Gojo
Agriculture

30. Road to Gojo
Timber

31. Road to Gojo
Water

32. Road to Gojo
Trade offs
Neutral
Trade off
Minor Trade off
Opportunity for change

33. Scaling Up
System boundaries vary with ecosystem service

34. Potato farmer removing
eucalyptus
Remnant tree cover
Reduced base flows in streams with
Eucalyptus riparian areas

35. Key points
• The mapped output needed to integrate across
scales from field to ‘landscape’.
• The output needed to be spatially explicit
• Multiple services need to be mapped together
• To be useful in any landscape the tool must be able
to utilise generally available data in the first instance.
• Integrate scientific evidence with local knowledge.
• The output should support the implementation of
policy at landscape scales.