Understanding the accuracy of modelled changes in freshwater provision over time.

Accurate modelling of changes in freshwater supplies is critical in an era of increasing human demand, and changes in land use and climate. However, there are concerns that current landscape-scale models do not sufficiently capture catchment-level changes, whilst large-scale comparisons of empirical and simulated water yield changes are lacking. Here we modelled annual water yield in two time periods (1: 1985-1994 and 2: 2008-2017) across 81 catchments in England and validated against empirical data. Our objectives were to i) investigate whether modelling absolute or relative change in water yield is more accurate and ii) determine which predictors have the greatest impact on model accuracy. We used the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Annual Water Yield model. In this study, absolute values refer to volumetric units of million cubic metres per year (Mm3/y), either at the catchment or hectare level. Modelled annual yields showed high accuracy as indicated by the low Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD, based on normalised data, 0 is high and 1 is low accuracy) at the catchment (1: 0.013 ± 0.019, 2: 0.012 ± 0.020) and hectare scales (1: 0.03 ± 0.030, 2: 0.030 ± 0.025). But accuracy of modelled absolute change in water yield showed a more moderate fit on both the catchment (MAD = 0.055 ± 0.065) and hectare (MAD = 0.105 ± 0.089) scales. Relative change had lower accuracy (MAD = 0.189 ± 0.135). Anthropogenic modifications to the hydrological system, including water abstraction contributed significantly to the inaccuracy of change values at the catchment and hectare scales. Quantification of changes in freshwater provision can be more accurately articulated using absolute values rather than using relative values. Absolute values can provide clearer guidance for mitigation measures related to human consumption. Accuracy of modelled change is related to different aspects of human consumption, suggesting anthropogenic impacts are critically important to consider when modelling water yield.

Ecological restoration of agricultural land can improve its contribution to economic development.

Given the negative environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, there is an urgent need to reduce the impact of food production on biodiversity. Ecological restoration of farmland could potentially contribute to this goal. While the positive impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity are well established, less evidence is available regarding impacts on economic development and employment. Potentially, prospects for economic development could be enhanced by ecological restoration though increased provision of ecosystem services, on which some economic activity depends. Here we examined this issue through the development of contrasting land use scenarios for the county of Dorset, southern England. Two scenarios of future agricultural expansion were compared with two scenarios of landscape-scale ecological restoration and the current situation. Impacts on provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) were explored using InVEST models and proxy values for different land cover types. Impacts on economic employment were examined using an economic input-output model, which was adjusted for variation in ES flows using empirically determined ES dependency values for different economic sectors. Using the unadjusted input-output model, the scenarios had only a slight economic impact (≤ 0.3% Gross Value Added, GVA). Conversely, when the input-output model was adjusted to take account of ES flows, GVA increased by up to 5.4% in the restoration scenarios, whereas under the scenario with greatest agricultural expansion, GVA was reduced by -4.5%. Similarly, employment increased by up to 6.7% following restoration, compared to declines of up to -5.6% following maximum agricultural expansion. These results show that the economic contribution of rural land is far greater than that attributable to agricultural production alone. Landscape-scale restoration of agricultural land can potentially increase the contribution of farmland to economic development and employment, by increasing flows of multiple ES to the many economic sectors that depend on them.

Do drivers of nature visitation vary spatially? The importance of context for understanding visitation of nature areas in Europe and North America.

Nature visitation is important, both culturally and economically. Given the contribution of nature recreation to multiple societal goals, comprehending determinants of nature visitation is essential to understand the drivers associated with the popularity of nature areas, for example, to inform land-use planning or site management strategies to maximise benefits. Understanding the factors related to nature, tourism and recreation can support the management of nature areas and thereby, also conservation efforts and biodiversity protection. This study applied a Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) to quantify the spatially varying influence of different factors associated with nature visitation in Europe and North America. Results indicated that some explanatory variables were stationary for all sites (age 15 to 65, population density (within 25 km), GDP, area, built-up areas, plateaus, and mountains). In contrast, others exhibited significant spatial non-stationarity (locally variable): needle-leaf trees (conifers), trails, travel time, roads, and Red List birds and amphibians. Needle-leaf trees and travel time were found to be negatively significant in Europe. Roads were found to have a significant positive effect in North America. Trails and Red List bird species were found to have a positive effect in both North America and North Europe, with a greater effect in Europe. Red List amphibians was the only spatially variable predictor to have both a positive and negative impact, with selected sites in North America and northern Europe being positive, whereas Iceland and central and southern Europe were negative. The scale of the response-predictor relationship (bandwidth) of these locally variable predictors was smallest for Red List amphibians at 1033 km, with all other spatially variable predictors between 9558 and 12,285 km. The study demonstrates the contribution that MGWR, a spatially explicit model, can make to support a deeper understanding of processes associated with nature visitation in different geographic contexts.

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities.

Grasslands provide multiple Ecosystem Services (ES) such as forage provision, carbon sequestration or habitat provision. Knowledge about the trade-offs between these ES is of great importance for grassland management. Yet, the outcome of different management strategies on ES provision is highly uncertain due to spatial variability. We aim to characterize the provision (level and spatial variability) of grassland ES under various management strategies. To do so, we combine empirical data for multiple ES with spatially explicit census data on land use intensities. We analyzed the variations of five ES (forage provision, climate regulation, pollination, biodiversity conservation and outdoor recreation) using data from biodiversity fieldwork, experimental plots for carbon as well as social network data from Flickr. These data were used to calculate the distribution of modelled individual and multiple ES values from different grassland management types in a Swiss case study region using spatial explicit information for 17,383 grassland parcels. Our results show that (1) management regime and intensity levels play an important role in ES provision but their impact depends on the ES. In general, extensive management, especially in pastures, favors all ES but forage provision, whereas intensive management favors only forage provision and outdoor recreation; (2) ES potential provision varies between parcels under the same management due to the influence of environmental drivers, related to topography and landscape structure; (3) there is a trade-offs between forage provision and other ES at the cantonal level but a synergy between forage provision and biodiversity conservation within the grassland categories, due to the negative impact of elevation on both ES. Information about multiple ES provision is key to support effective agri-environmental measures and information about the spatial variability can prevent uncertain outputs of decision-making processes.