In response to a call by the President’s office, several federal agencies tasked with managing the nation’s natural resources selected an pilot group of landscape partnerships through the Resilient Lands and Waters Initiative.
As a part of this initiative, GeoAdaptive analyzed which were the most resilience lands and water (habitats) given a group of stressors and the provicion of ecosystem services that will affect landscape and seascape of Southeast Florida up to 2060.
The following website documents the ongoing work in one of these regions, an area spanning seven counties in Southwest Florida [click here to know more], where a combination of population growth and rising sea level and water temperatures threaten coastal, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems.
Scenario modeling has been used to simulate development and climate pressures on natural resources that consider different sets of assumptions. Existing policies continued in the “Trend” scenario result in dispersed residential growth and less conservation. The “Proactive Plus” scenario applies smart growth principles for denser development and expanded conservation. [click here to know more].
Since the idea is to create an integrated evaluation that systematically looks from the drivers to pressures to impacts, helps identify adequate responses (definition of conservation and management efforts), and thus involves both human and environmental dynamics, we will use the DPSIR framework as a conceptual backbone to our effort [click here to know more].
This project benefits from an extensive body of existing research into environmental change and human development in the region, and the broader landscapes of peninsular Florida and the southeastern United States. Research topics and partner organizations range from local planning efforts by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council to evaluate climate change vulnerability, to statewide urban growth projections for the Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative, and a regional resilience assessment by The Nature Conservancy.
Projections have been developed which consider the latest population trends, as well as development policies that promote more compact growth patterns or existing policies that tend to produce more widespread land cover change.
Analysis of trade-offs between fee-simple and easement-based conservation have been evaluated, in addition to application of landscape conservation design principles to key habitat areas.
The most accurate available topographic data and robust climate modeling methods have been applied to develop predictions of sea level rise and sea surface temperature change, as well as their potential impacts on the region.
These services have been categorized according to the type of benefit they provide, and many studies have assessed the relative value of these services, as well as identifying ecosystems that cumulatively provide the most overall benefit.
The following section summarizes the main changes evaluated through the Drivers and Pressures analysis of the three scenarios considered as part of this project. Drivers are defined as a social, economic, or biophysical phenomenon with broad regional or global effects that may induce changes in the state of the environment. Each of these Drivers creates many more specific Pressures on the system. Pressures are defined as the means through which drivers are actually expressed.
In the project study area, we selected a combination of drivers affecting both the landscape and seascape environments and related Pressures. Our analysis identifies 8 drivers and 4 pressures for each driver. Starting from the Resilience Index developed by ARUP for the 100RC project, we identified 20 different resilience indicators organized in five different categories: general, anthropogenic, biophysical, economic and social. Each indicator is assigned a score between 1 (low, local) to 5 (high, global). The final results for each scenario are between 20 and 100. To evaluate the driver, we have calculated an average of the score for the related pressures. Using a wheel (where each box values 5) we represented all the results [click on the pictures below to see them].
The graph compares the results obtained for the 8 different drivers. For all of them the Trend Sc. has the highest rank. Considering the increase of different conservative policies, the Proactive Sc. has the lowest rank. This is different for the “Pollution and water management” driver that is influenced by global phenomena like GHG emission: in this case the Proactive Sc. is worse of the Current Sc. The Average’s column shows the potential increase of 15 points on 2060 considering the Trend Sc. But if we will move to a Proactive Sc. the benefits in terms of resilience capability will be remarkable.
The results demonstrate that the Pollution and water management driver is the least resilient for all three scenarios considered. A low resilience capacity is also linked to three different drivers: climate change, population growth and agriculture/ranching. The urbanization driver produces the greatest increase in resilience for the proactive scenario compared to the two other scenarios. The next section introduces how the natural functions of the region’s ecosystems also help contribute to resilience.
The final section of this website presents a summary of the results of the habitat analysis and coastal vulnerability assessment. Additional links are provided for more details on the results and further information about the studies and papers that were referenced for the Resilient Lands and Waters Initiative in southwest Florida.
People benefit from a range of natural processes that function at local to global scales and support or produce elements of the world we live in. This array of goods and services, produced by the combined physical and biological components of the environment, are known as ecosystem services. Human gains from ecosystem services range from cultural benefits such as recreation opportunities, to dependency such as pollinated food crops and clean water. The health of the underlying ecosystems that support these services is key to the long-term provision of benefits to humans.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, conducted by a consortium of scientists at the request of the UN in the early 2000’s, grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories of service types: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural. Each service category indicates the primary function that ecosystem services provide for human benefit. The roles and interaction of these services are dependent on location and scale.
Ecosystem services specific to southwest Florida were identified from eight terrestrial and marine research projects conducted in the region. The projects included coastal marine ecosystems, habitat-specific terrestrial ecosystems such as grasslands and forests, human needs/desires-based studies, and a regional Gulf Coast study. Recreation, a cultural ecosystem service, was identified as a priority in all of the projects. Additional high priority services included aesthetic value, the provision of food for human consumption, and biological, nutrient, and water regulation (including filtering or cleansing). Ecosystem services that ranked low for this selection of studies were primarily Supportive services. Although the four categories of services are often shown as weighted equally, the Supportive services primarily ensure the proper function of the other three categories in providing goods and services.
Ecosystem services, and the direct and indirect benefits we derive from them, are dependent on the continued functioning of healthy ecosystems. The biological, chemical, thermal, and physical processes that create these complex ecosystems are interconnected in a matrix that works together to sustain the systems. Disruptions to any of the processes that create or drive an ecosystem have the potential to cause negative downstream effects on the ability to maintain its service capacity.
To develop the Resilience Assessment, the methodology developed by the UNU-IAS in 2014 was used as a reference. The methodology developed provides an initial overview of Resilience for the study area based on the three different scenarios (Current, Plan Trend, Proactive Plus) considering landscapes and seascapes change. These two ecosystems are usually characterized as dynamic mosaics of habitats and uses where the interaction between people, species and landscape, generate impacts that can reduce or increase the specific resilience capability.
These impacts were measured using 5 different categories: Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem protection, Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity) and innovation, Social equality and well-being, Governance and livelihoods and Economic influence.
Each category was analyzed through 6 related indicators scored from 1 to 5 replying to specific questions (Very high – 5, Very low – 1). The different indicators were developed tailored on the specific case study with the goal to provide an overview able to consider both the environments. To better understand the indicators selected and their score click on the different “More info” tab.
|1. Landscape and seascape diversity|
|Which ecosystems are protected and what is the form of protection?|
|[popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/preliminary_resilience_land-seas” height=”650″ width=”1200″ scrollbars=”0″]More info[/popup]|
|2. Biodiversity and innovation|
|Which innovative practices are used in managing agriculture, fisheries and forestry?|
|[popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/test_resilience” height=”650″ width=”1200″ scrollbars=”0″]More info[/popup]|
|3. Social equality and well-being|
|Is decision-making fair and equitable for all community members at all levels?|
|[popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/preliminary_resilience_social-equa” height=”650″ width=”1200″ scrollbars=”0″]More info[/popup]|
4. Governance and livelihoods
|Are there agreed rules and regulations for effectively doing so?|
|[popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/preliminary_resilience_governance” height=”650″ width=”1200″ scrollbars=”0″]More info[/popup]|
5. Economic influence landscape/seascape
What activities generate income in the landscape or seascape?
|[popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/preliminary_resilience_economic” height=”650″ width=”1200″ scrollbars=”0″]More info[/popup]|
To determine the final resilience ranks we calculated the average between the rank’s indicators for the different categories. The spider graphs below provide these final results.
The category 1 looks the most affected by the variation of the scenarios: decreasing for the Plan Trend, increasing for the Proactive plus. The variation on the conservation policies strongly influences also the categories 5 and 4.
These results underline the key roles that economy and governance have and will have on the development of current and future resilience strategies.
In order to assess the impacts of anticipated changes due to climate and development pressures in the region, a geospatial analysis was developed which considers how marine, coastal, and land-based habitats may be altered. The effects on these natural systems have subsequent implications on many of the ecosystem services discussed previously – particularly food provision, recreation, water regulation, and coastal protection – which are likely to cause negative consequences for the region’s current and future residents.
Stanford University’s Natural Capital Project [popup url=”http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/” height=”600″ width=”1000″ scrollbars=”0″] [More info] [/popup] has developed a suite of models, known as InVEST, to estimate the importance of ecosystem services using science-based, qualitative and semi-quantitative methods. For this project, the Coastal Vulnerability model was selected, due to tropical storms affecting the southwest Florida study region roughly once every three years (FEMA, 2005).
This model uses locally-derived, high resolution spatial data to calculate a storm surge and wave vulnerability index, which considers geomorphology, nearshore bathymetry, and natural habitats that provide protective capacity. The model was run based on current (2016) conditions, as well as evaluating changes to the shoreline due to sea level rise through 2060, and increased vulnerability due to population growth along the coast.
Damage to homes in Punta Gorda from Hurricane Charley (FEMA, 2004)
Spatial coastal vulnerability factors considered in the InVEST model.
The InVEST model shows the uneven distribution of vulnerability along the coastline of the study region, due to differences in geomorphology and the presence of habitats such as marshes and mangroves that provide a protective buffer.
The habitat change assessment also highlights which terrestrial and marine habitats could experience the greatest impacts, based on the urban growth and sea level rise scenarios. Areas where resilient habitats may be displaced or protected from development were also identified.
This study illustrates how different development and conservation policies may influence the resilience of southwest Florida’s lands, waters, and growing population. Further research should focus on how critical ecosystem services help to ensure the well-being of locally significant species, protect lives and property, and buffer these valuable ecosystems from the pressures of a changing climate.
Additional information about this project, including datasets and complete results is available through the [popup url=”https://pflcc.databasin.org/” height=”600″ width=”1000″ scrollbars=”0″] PFLCC Conservation Planning Atlas [/popup].
This website and its content were developed by [popup url=”http://geoadaptive.com/” height=”600″ width=”1000″ scrollbars=”0″] GeoAdaptive, LLC [/popup]. We would like to acknowledge the funding and support of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and [popup url=”http://peninsularfloridalcc.org/” height=”600″ width=”1000″ scrollbars=”0″] Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative [/popup], as well as the wealth of knowledge from past research that helped to guide and inform this effort. A complete list of references and links is provided below.
Coastal Ecosystems Services in South Florida (COCA) – NOAA-AOML
Comprehensive Southwest Florida / Charlotte Harbor Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment – SWFRPC
Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida – 1000 Friends of Florida
Florida’s State Wildlife Action Plan – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Sea Level Scenario Sketch Planning Tool – University of Florida GeoPlan Center
Key Marine Ecosystem Services (MARES) – Forest Trends
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) – Natural Capital Project
Southeast Resilience Project – The Nature Conservancy
Florida Geographic Data Library – University of Florida GeoPlan Center
GIS & Mapping Data Downloads – Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
Elevation Contours of Lake Okeechobee – South Florida Information Access (USGS)
Coastal Bathymetry – Tim Liebermann, South Florida Water Management District
Coastal Bathymetry – Bob Swett, Florida Sea Grant Boating and Waterway Planning Program
NOS Hydrographic Survey Data – National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA)