Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Global Network for Advanced Management Resilience Challenge 6 : Ecosystem Service Valuation Stoneburner, Lauren; Zhang, Catherina (Yusi); Yu, Bella (Ruiqi); Pai, Samrudh 2018-03-16

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
66428-Stoneburner_L_et_al_BA_532_Global_Network_Presentation.pdf [ 1.11MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 66428-1.0375663.json
JSON-LD: 66428-1.0375663-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 66428-1.0375663-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 66428-1.0375663-rdf.json
Turtle: 66428-1.0375663-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 66428-1.0375663-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 66428-1.0375663-source.json
Full Text
66428-1.0375663-fulltext.txt
Citation
66428-1.0375663.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Global Network for Advanced Management Resilience Challenge 6: Ecosystem Service Valuation Lauren Stoneburner, Catherina (Yusi) Zhang, Bella (Ruiqi) Yu, Samrudh Pai University of British Columbia BA 532 Themes: Biodiversity, Climate, Land March 16, 2018 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.Resilience Challenge 6: Ecosystem Service ValuationLauren Stoneburner, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CTCatherina (Yusi) Zhang, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, P.R.C.Bella (Ruiqi) Yu, Renmin University of China, P.R.C.Samrudh Pai, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, IndiaMarch 16, 2018Photo credit: Jamie MyersWhat is Urban Resilience?Urban resilience is “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (100 Resilient Cities)2Ecosystem Service Valuation – An IntroductionWhat is Ecosystem Service Valuation?“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)• Provisioning (i.e. food and water)• Regulating (i.e. flood and disease control)• Cultural (i.e. spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits)• Supporting (i.e. nutrient cycling, maintaining conditions for life on Earth)Why do we need Ecosystem Service Valuation?“An assessment of the condition of ecosystems, the provision of services, and their relation to human well-being requires an integrated approach. This enables a decision process to determine which service or set of services is valued most highly and how to develop approaches to maintain services by managing the system sustainably.” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)3Executive SummarySummary of findings and recommendations• UBC’s Core Resilience Challenges:• Stormwater management and cliff erosion• Biodiversity protection• Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI)• Carbon sequestration• Health and wellbeing• Brand protection• Use economic models to evaluate the monetary return on these important ecosystem services• Assess methods for managing ecosystem services long-term and compensating for the loss of trees due to campus development• Increase engagement with and awareness of UBC’s urban forest4Current Tree Management Practices at UBCUBC does not consider ecosystem services for tree protection• Trees are explicitly protected for…• “Star tree” status• A few designated open spaces• Individuals at UBC are working to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan5Our Resilience ChallengeGoals and Objectives1. Identify and assess ecosystem service evaluation models2. Identify how UBC can systematically and appropriately compensate for the loss of ecosystem services 3. Identify examples of cities and institutions that have implemented an urban forest assessment and management plan4. Make recommendations on how to advocate for ecosystem services management and protections67ICLEI Cities Biodiversity CenterForest vs. Building• Cost Benefit8Value of utilizationDirect IndirectValue of assets/Cost of utilizationEvaluation Model Comparison9i-Tree UTC Assessment Center for Urban Forest Research CTCCEcosystem Services EvaluatedStormwater, Energy Use, Carbon Sequestration, Air QualityMaps land cover changes and opportunities for tree canopy and green infrastructure expansion according to specific metrics such as land use typeCarbon Sequestration, Energy Savings and CO2equivalents from shading buildingsAdopted By USDA; Arbor Day Foundation; Seattle, University of Pennsylvania; London; South Australia; Mexico, etcToronto, Ontario, CanadaChicago, IL, USANew York City, NY, USA(see complete map by Univ. of VT)Duke University, NC, USABerkeley, CA, USACharlotte, NC, USASanta Monica, CA, USAData Needed Tree inventory, Survey data, 3rd party info (Satellite, Map, Weather, Pollution, etc)Building footprints, road polygons, parcels, public rights-of-way and target geographies, using high-resolution LiDAR imagery(explanation and more details).Climate zone, species of interest, tree size (DBH) or age. For further energy savings analysis: tree distance from building, tree direction from building, building age, and type of air conditioning/heating equipmentPros 1) Comprehensive with data-acquisition techniques and a methodology;                                        2) Ability to quantify and measurethe Regulating categoryComprehensive measurement of ecosystem services1) Ability to define the amount of CO2 values in a particular region selected.2) Being integrated into i-Tree (not yet available)Cons 1) Limited on other categories                                                2) Quality data Requirement/GISneeded                                                         3) Other country data beyond US to be improved1) Long-term assessment2) Relatively higher costConditions may vary within regions, so rate of tree growth, microclimate, or building characteristics may be less accuratehttps://www.epa.gov/heat-islands/measuring-heat-islandshttps://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/graduateresearch/310/items/1.0075852http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/132249/Urban-Forest-Strategy-Adopted-Feb-2013.pdfhttp://bayareamonitor.org/summer-in-the-city-seeking-relief-from-urban-heat-islands/Increased Energy BillsHealth Risk – No.1 Weather Killer in USVancouver Usual Temp:17 – 22°CVancouver Airport 2009 Temp:34.4°CVancouver 24°C+Frequency:2XExample: Urban Heat Island - BackgroundAug-Sept/2017, Bay Area/US 2005, Downtown/Vancouverhttps://www.epa.gov/air-research/models-tools-and-databases-air-researchhttps://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2003_mcpherson003_maco.pdfhttps://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/150567/2/Maher_AAEA_P3348_TreeShade.pdfhttps://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/erco/erc00.pdfExample: Urban Heat Island - Urban Forest Contribution Evaluation★ Energy Savings: ● Toronto 2008: 99,277 trees; 23% UTC; 749K MBTU,  41.2K MWH & CAD $9.7M● UBC Estimation: CAD $1M★ Next Step suggested for UBC to conduct i-Tree :Tree Inventory(#,Size,Species)Building(%,Type,Distance)Heating Source Typei-TreeCanopy & EcoP.S. Accuracy affected by classifying & Distance to the buildings mattered12Cost$15-65/tree/yrNet Profit$30-90/tree/yrUtility Cost by Removing3-5% UP/treeUrban Forest Cost-Benefit OverviewUSDA Forest Service: ❏ The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree = 10 roomsized air conditioners operating 20 hours a day ❏ Trees properly situated around buildings: reduce air conditioning needs by 30%; save 25% of energy used in heating https://www epa gov/sites/production/files/2014 06/documents/treesandvegcompendium pdfCompensation or Substitution:A reactive approach13Issues with compensating or substituting for the loss of ecosystem services• “Substitutes are available for some ecosystem services, although often the cost of a technological substitution will be high and it may not replace all the services lost”• “Individuals gaining the benefits are not those who originally benefited from the ecosystem services.”• To fully assess the ecosystem services, the model must consider:• The cost of a substitute• The opportunity cost of maintaining the service• Cross-service costs and impacts• The geographic distributional impacts of any substitution(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)Alternative to a Compensation Model:Proactive Management14Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Targets• Tree canopy cover in the U.S. averages 27% in urban areas and 33% in metropolitan areas (Dwyer and Nowak 2000)• Urban trees are subject to many stressors that shorten tree lifespan (Center for Watershed Protection)• Therefore, UTC Targets is a critical tool for protecting and enhancing an urban forest1. Measure Current UTC2. Estimate Potential UTC3. Adopt a UTC Goal• American Forests’ Vibrant Cities Lab• Includes research, case studies, and tools resourcesAlternative to a Compensation Model:Proactive ManagementBiodiversity Targets• City of Melbourne: • “increasing forest diversity with no more than five percent of one tree species, no more than ten percent of one genus and no more than 20 percent of any one family”  (Melbourne Urban Forest Strategy)• University of Melbourne: • Conducting a baseline biodiversity assessment, so that it can implement a “no net loss” policy• Maintain or increase tree diversity, while particularly selecting species with climate resilience in mind• (University of Melbourne Biodiversity Management Strategy)15Case Studies16City or Institution Current canopy cover Canopy cover target Hyperlink 🔗🔗Vancouver, Canada 18 % Plant 150,000 trees by 2020 linkEdmonton, Canada 10.3 % 20 % linkKelowna, Canada 13 % 25 % linkOakville, Canada 29.1 % 30 % linkOttawa, Canada 25 % 30 % linkToronto, Canada 26.6 - 28 % 30% linkCase Studies (continued)17City or Institution Current canopy cover Canopy cover target Hyperlink 🔗🔗Portland, OR, USA 26.3 % 35-40% (residential areas), 15% (industrial/commercial), 30% (parks, open space), and 35% (rights-of-way)linkSeattle, WA, USA 18 % 30 % (with specific targets for each land use category) linkVancouver, WA, USA 19.7 % 28 % linkMelbourne, Australia 22 % 40 % linkUniversity of Washington 28.6 % [In research phase] linkUniversity of Maryland 24 % 40 % linkUniv of California, San Diego 12 % 40 % linkCampus EngagementCurrent Students● Arbor Day or National Forest Week○ E.g. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society’s award-winning Flower Show○ Recommendations from Canadian Forestry Association■ Tree plantings■ Nature walks■ Tree care■ Identify all the things at home or school that are made of wood■ Tour forest sector industry or processing site● Tree planting events at orientation● Tree adoption for residential colleges● Campus tree signage** Coordinate tree plantings / adoptions on sites that provide disproportionately concentrated ecosystem services (e.g. areas critical for stormwater management or vulnerable to UHI)18Campus EngagementAlumni and donors• Guided campus nature walks• Highlighting the university’s history in arboriculture and forestry history• Opportunity to sponsor tree protection• Include tree protection in development projects that are sponsored by donors and offer installation of a commemorative plaque19Summary of Recommendations• Economic models for consideration• i-Tree, UTC Assessment, and CTCC• Proactive urban forest management strategy• Tree canopy cover targets• Biodiversity targets• Community engagement can inspire community awareness and support for planning and protections20Areas for future investigation• Evaluate ecosystem services of the forest as a system, in addition to the benefit of each tree independently• Identify priority areas for urban forest protection and management• Decide on urban forest management goals and objectives• What ecosystem services are more or less valuable? What are you managing for?• Consider potential opportunities to explore forested roofs, which could integrate the built and forested environments21AcknowledgementsWe’d like to send a special thank you to all who have supported the development of our team’s recommendations. In particular, we appreciate the guidance and support from our instructors, José Puppim de Oliveira and Murali Chandrashekaran, as well as the opportunity to investigate this resilience challenge from John Madden. Individuals such as Jeffrey Nulty, Dean Gregory, Cathy Pasion, David Gill, Jennifer Rae Pierce and Doug Doyle were also indispensable during our learning and discovery process.22

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.66428.1-0375663/manifest

Comment

Related Items