Troubleshooting Document and Powerpoint: (CLC 12/6/10)

I've edited Shawn's work on this.

Final Presentation: Combined (ALR 12/5/10)

Final Presentation: Biodiversity section (NCH 12/5/10)
-Please let me know if you have any major revisions or see any errors.
-I will double check formatting and work on animation later tonight.

REVISED COMBINED PRESENTATION- Below is an updated version of the presentation containing both he biodiversity and valuation sections. We intend to make more revisions after the presentation talk and welcome your feedback (NCH 12/2/10)

Part 1:

Nyeema, here are the data for the 2001 land cover pie chart




Part 2: Tax Value Introduction and Method
2. classroom version (11/29)
1. InVESTalr.pptx

Thoughts (from george 11/29)
  • Call it "Property value" rather than tax value - we're using the tax assessment value as an estimate for property value

  • Methods tax value slide - it's not "high" - there's only one value
  • Water runoff is not in the stack - Nitrogen retention is
  • Yes, all were run with a 20-year period, 1% discount
  • Still working on one-time (storage, stormwater)

Part 3:

Manuscript Rough Draft:


<<Note: Initially posted by MM - feel free to edit anything - including the title>>

TITLE: Ecosystem Service Valuation and Biodiversity Preservation in the Upper Neuse Watershed of North Carolina: Are ecosystem service markets likely to preserve functioning ecosystems and biodiversity in a highly urbanizing region of the US?

<<I had an issue with "functioning ecosystems" being included in the title. I'm not quite sure we're able to answer that question with our results. Also, I think "of the US" isn't necessary since we're already telling them about the study area (UNW of NC). - Chris>>


  • Regulatory Markets - market based approach for environmentally sound solutions
  • Market Diversity - potential for many markets are developing - from wetlands and stream restoration, to endangered species, to carbon credits
  • Stacking Services - some propose stacking of services - why would this be something we would want to do?
  • InVEST - developed to be a regional scale model with moderate resolution that provides a spatial medium for stacking services across a landscape
  • Why is this a new thing? What else has been done? (i.e. up until invest was available the studies on ES tended to be across very broad spatial scales (constanza as an example) or at very small scales and on a service at a time - neither seemed to be very valuable for market creation.

  • How has invest been used? What have the results shown? (show where the models have been used, what questions they were able to answer (mainly do ES and Biodiversity match up?), and if they actually lead to the preservation of open space/ecosystems/biodiversity and where.
  • Some other places ecosystem service markets have worked are.....

  • We would like to build on these analyses - see if biodiversity and ES overlap (and all the other fancy terms george talks about)
  • and then ALSO ask the question - is it likely in an area with rapid development and increasingly high land values - would the value of stacked services be able to compete? Therefore - if the markets were established would it be likely to save land from development?

<<Notice - you start with the big picture ideas and dwindle your way down to the last paragraph which is the "our goals were" paragraph>>


  • I think this is obvious - talk about the study area, the different models (including input variable tables), and also the land value analyses


  • Again the order of these depends on the graphs we make and how we want to proceed with the story - probably in two-three sections:
  • 1. General Results - Maps of different services (descriptive
  • 2. ES and Biodiversity
  • 3. Land Values and ES


  • Why do each of these results matter? so -
  • 1. Our Biodiversity and ES results relate to other studies and either disagree- agree- or both ;) or we don't know - Include a conclusion on these results - (i.e. we think that these results show that ES and Biodiversity are definitely related and that if we protected land for one or the other we would be preserving both functioning ecosystems and biodiversity that we value <<I made that up>>)
  • 2. Our results show that in some areas ES have a high value and for now can outcompete land prices - but if the highly urbanized region expands and the prices increase it is unlikely - <<again making things up>>
  • 3. Other research shows that this is likely to be expected - so ES might work in oregon with all the hippies next to an undevelopable mountain but the triangle and its never ending sprawling growth will never survive under this framework
  • 4. Besides the fact that stacking values makes ES values higher - and some people think that stacking will never work - and this is why (bendor) - if that is the case then we really have no chance <<remember I am making things up>>
  • 5. Furthermore, what happens when the method for technologically replacing an ES becomes cheaper than preserving land -NY worked because NY saw that they were saving money by saving the watershed.
  • 6. Finally - Also interesting to note is that ecosystem services were predicted to be highly heterogeneous across the landscape - that makes preserving large areas of high service value a bit difficult. We should also keep in mind that areas of high value are close to people - as predicted by this model - what does that mean for preserving large open spaces that actually can still function effectively. Areas on edges of human habitats are more highly valued - often edge areas are less quality ecosystems - if we try to maximize ES would we actually create the type of functioning ecosystem that we need?

  • In conclusion our results show that we need to rethink the application of ES for biodiversity protection and for the protection of ES in highly urbanizing regions