William M. Forney

An integrated multi-criteria scenario evaluation web tool for participatory land-use planning in urbanized areas: The Ecosystem Portfolio Model

Land-use land-cover change is one of the most important and direct drivers of changes in ecosystem functions and services. Given the complexity of the decision-making, there is a need for Internet-based decision support systems with scenario evaluation capabilities to help planners, resource managers and communities visualize, compare and consider trade-offs among the many values at stake in land use planning. This article presents details on an Ecosystem Portfolio Model (EPM) prototype that integrates ecological, socio-economic information and associated values of relevance to decision-makers and stakeholders. The EPM uses a multi-criteria scenario evaluation framework, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and spatially-explicit land-use/land-cover change-sensitive models to characterize changes in important land-cover related ecosystem values related to ecosystem services and functions, land parcel prices, and community quality-of-life (QoL) metrics. Parameters in the underlying models can be modified through the interface, allowing users in a facilitated group setting to explore simultaneously issues of scientific uncertainty and divergence in the preferences of stakeholders. One application of the South Florida EPM prototype reported in this article shows the modeled changes (which are significant) in aggregate ecological value, landscape patterns and fragmentation, biodiversity potential and ecological restoration potential for current land uses compared to the 2050 land-use scenario. Ongoing refinements to EPM, and future work especially in regard to modifiable sea level rise scenarios are also discussed.

An economic value of remote-sensing information—Application to agricultural production and maintaining groundwater quality

Presents a collection of slides covering the following topics: This application would not be possible without MRLI, and VOI cannot be estimated without an application; An estimate of VOI for MRLI and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission is

Estimating the Benefits of Land Imagery in Environmental Applications: A Case Study in Nonpoint Source Pollution of Groundwater

38.1B ±

The development and application of a decision support system for land management in the Lake Tahoe Basin—The Land Use Simulation Model

8.8B for northeastern Iowa; VOI estimate could be lower with additional constraints, land use policies, and management practices; VOI estimate could be higher with larger regions or different applications; By soft-coupling complex geospatial, agricultural production, hydrogeologic and groundwater vulnerability models, our results give regional decision makers natural resource management tools to use in context of protecting public health.

A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

Moderate-resolution land imagery (MRLI) is crucial to a more complete assessment of the cumulative, landscape-level effect of agricultural land use and land cover on environmental quality. If this improved assessment yields a net social benefit, then that benefit reflects the value of information (VOI) from MRLI. Environmental quality and the capacity to provide ecosystem services evolve because of human actions, changing natural conditions, and their interaction with natural physical processes. The human actions, in turn, are constrained and redirected by many institutions and regulations such as agricultural, energy, and environmental policies. We present a general framework for bringing together sociologic, biologic, physical, hydrologic, and geologic processes at meaningful scales to interpret environmental implications of MRLI applications. We set out a specific application using MRLI observations to identify crop planting patterns and thus estimate surface management activities that influence groundwater resources over a regional landscape. We tailor the application to the characteristics of nonpoint source groundwater pollution hazards in Iowa to illustrate a general framework in a land use-hydrologic-economic system. In the example, MRLI VOI derives from reducing the risk of both losses to agricultural production and damage to human health and other consequences of contaminated groundwater.

Land use change and effects on water quality and ecosystem health in the Lake Tahoe basin, Nevada and California

..........................................................................................................................................................1 Background.....................................................................................................................................................1 Lake Tahoe Basin Natural and Anthropogenic Setting ..................................................................2 Fire in the Wildland-Urban Interface ........................................................................................5 Land-Use Change ........................................................................................................................5 Urban Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................6 Water Quality and Impact of Urbanization ..............................................................................7 Land Capability .............................................................................................................................8 Bailey Land Capability System .........................................................................................8 Individual Parcel Evaluation System ...............................................................................8 Lake Tahoe Land Management ..........................................................................................................9 Land-Acquisition Programs .....................................................................................................10 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ...........................................................................................10 Allocations and Commodities .........................................................................................13 Redevelopment, Mixed Use and Compact, Form-Based Design ..............................15 Other Agency Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................15 Pathway 2007 ..............................................................................................................................15 Five Counties and One City .......................................................................................................16 Materials, Data Sources, and Conversions .............................................................................................16 Data Assessment .......................................................................................................................19 Methods, Model Design, and Logic ..........................................................................................................20 Design Criteria for the Decision Support System ..........................................................................20 Collaborator Communication and Feedback .........................................................................20 Determining the “What” and Amount of Allocation Pool(s) .............................20 Determining the “Where” to Develop and Retire ...............................................21 Additional Considerations ......................................................................................21 Modeling Theory and Approach ......................................................................................................21 Decision Rules ............................................................................................................................24 Development Intention ..............................................................................................................25 Retirement Intention ..................................................................................................................26 Logic and Functional Considerations .....................................................................................26 Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................28 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................29 Reasonability Analysis and Model Testing .....................................................................................29 Select Model Output: Tables and Maps ..........................................................................................29 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................35 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................45 Suggested Next Steps .......................................................................................................................46 Data Management for TRPA ....................................................................................................46 Maintenance and Updates .......................................................................................................46 Additional Research Avenues .................................................................................................46 Summary and Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................47 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................48 References ....................................................................................................................................................49