Ibisch et al Towards a quantification of wilderness?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ibisch et al Towards a quantification of wilderness?

on

  • 476 views

Pierre Ibisch presented the research results of his group at the special wilderness symposium during the 3rd European Conference on Conservation Biology in Glasgow on August 2012. He argues for a ...

Pierre Ibisch presented the research results of his group at the special wilderness symposium during the 3rd European Conference on Conservation Biology in Glasgow on August 2012. He argues for a definition of functional wilderness. His conclusions include the argument of functionality leads to functions which ultimately results in better ecosystem services.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
476
Views on SlideShare
473
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3

http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.docseek.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ibisch et al Towards a quantification of wilderness? Ibisch et al Towards a quantification of wilderness? Presentation Transcript

  • Towards a quantification of wilderness? Innovative approaches to spatial planning and functionality-based priority setting for conservationPierre L. Ibisch, Lisa Freudenberger, Julia Sauermann, Nuria Selva & Peter Hobson pibisch@hnee.de Symposium Wilderness at the edge of survival in Europe ECCB 2012, GlasgowCentre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development View slide
  • P. Ibisch 2011 Scots Pine Plantation, Stechlin-Ruppiner Land Nature Park, Brandenburg, GermanyIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development View slide
  • 590 ha Beech Forest, Grumsin UNESCO World Heritage Site „Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Ancient Beech Forests of Germany“ Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve, Brandenburg, GermanyIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • 11.860 ha Beech Forest, Uholka UNESCO World Heritage Site „Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Ancient Beech Forests of Germany“ Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, UkraineIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • The relative absence or presence of wilderness: beech forests Relative absence of wilderness • ‚Scenery‘ • Form (structure, size) • FunctionMain sources: CORINE Land Cover data; Brus et al. 2011: Statistical mapping of tree species over Europe (EFI)Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Functional definition of wilderness Functional, self-ordering, self-referential ecosystems without (‚modern‘) anthropogenic forcing Functional ecosystems • structures, ecological functions and dynamics • inherently resilient and adaptive • development without abrupt change of system properties and/or geographical distribution(after adaptive cycle by Gunderson and Holling 2002)Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Relevance of ´functional wilderness´ • In the context of – Ecosystem services – Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: goods and services related to building resilience and adaptive capacity into the managed landscape – Green Infrastructure Where and how much? Functional wild Functional wild Functional wild Human ecosystems ecosystems‘ ecosystems‘ well- services goods being e.g. temperature attenuation,Processes and functions e.g., regulating, cultural clean water supply, inspirationIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances • Internal disturbances Proxies indicating – Obvious physical changes multiple • Modification disturbances? • Fragmentation • Destruction – Subtle compositional changes – e.g., elimination of certain ecosystem elements • External disturbances – (Global) Environmental changesIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbancesLandscape-scale proxy of absence of aseries of disturbances (fragmentation,pollution, noise, hydrological changes etc.)Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbanceshttp://earthengine.google.org/#intro/Roadless10kmIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying functional Traffic intensity (T): number of vehicles per hour (TV) wilderness: multiplied by the road length (R) in a given cell mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances – the example of Vicinity impact (V) in a given cell, was calculated as a value which takes into account the roads cumulative effect of all relevant roads as a function of • Spatial Road their distance and traffic load Disturbance Index (SPROADI) Freudenberger et al. (in review) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org) Fragmentation grade (F) was estimated using the formula of Jaeger et al. (2000) for the degree ofFederal State of landscape division (DIVI)BrandenburgIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances – the example of roads • Spatial Road Disturbance Index (SPROADI) Freudenberger et al. (in review) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)Federal State ofBrandenburgIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • • Spatial Road Disturbance Index (SPROADI)• Freudenberger et al. (in review); prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)• Correlation with land use types and protection statusIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying wilderness: mapping the (relative) presence of ‚functionality‘ using proxy indicators Global map of the ecosystem functionality index (EFI) in 1km resolution and WGS 1984 projection. High index values are colored green.Based on Species Richness Vegetation Plant Functionalproxies: Tree Height Density of Vascular Slope Richness Carbon Storage PlantsPrepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)Freudenberger et al. (in press): A global map of the functionality of terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological Complexity.Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying wilderness: combining proxies of (relative) presence and a. Biological-ecological proxies absence of • Plant species richness ‚functionality‘ • Slope • Soil carbon Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) • Vegetation density Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org) b. Connectivity and conservation status• Brandenburg • Road Disturbance Index Ecosystem • Forest connectivity Functionality IndexFreudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.) • Human footprint c. Climate change exposure change • Relative temperature change • Relative precipitation change • Relative change of forest firesIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying wilderness: combining proxies of (relative) presence and absence of ‚functionality‘ Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org) Road disturbance• Brandenburg Ecosystem Functionality IndexFreudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.)a. Biological-ecological proxiesb. Connectivity and conservationstatusc. Climate change impactd. FUNCTIONALITY INDEXIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Gap analysis: Relatively functional areas unprotected Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)• Brandenburg unprotected Ecosystem protected Functionality IndexFreudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.) ValueFederal State of HighBrandenburg LowIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Quantifying wilderness: mapping the (relative) presence of ‚functionality‘ in forest ecosystems • forest inventory data (tree species richness, share of native tree species, age heterogeneity, max. age, height) Sauermann et al. (2012) Hoffmann et al. (in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
  • Conclusions • Functionality-based wilderness quantification • Functionality  functions  ecosystem services • Combination of both disturbance (footprint) and functionality indicators allows mapping of ‚relatively wild‘ and functional ecosystems • Putting wilderness into context in Europe: ‚wilding‘ landscapes in terms of improving functionality and ecosystem services • Conservation planning targeting functional ecosystemsIbisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development