Integrated Environments

Planning • Integration * M a n a g e m e n t

Environment

PHASE 2 Report:

Conceptual Linkages and Initial Assessment

Presented to:

Alberta Environment

Presented by: - M

, f ■ 'C*

Integrated Envirorlfents (2Q0fpM
02 Planning + Des^Rlnc.'f^''l

Landscape Architecture, Urban + Environmental Planning

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
University of Alberta Libraries

https://archive.org/details/ecosystemgoodsse00albe_2

Page II

ISBN: 978-0-7785-6708-0 (Print version)
ISBN: 978-0-7785-6709-7 (Online version)
Website: www.gov.ab.ca/env/

Disclaimer:

The results presented in this document are preliminary in nature. A formal peer review of the
findings is scheduled to take place in the near future. The information presented in this document
has been compiled and interpreted exclusively for the purposes of Alberta Environment by
Integrated Environments Ltd. (IEL) according to conditions specified by contract. IEL has
exercised reasonable care, skill and due diligence to assess the data and information reviewed
during the preparation of this report, but makes no specific warranties or guarantees regarding
the completeness and accuracy of this information. The contents of this report are based on, and
limited by, the circumstances and conditions stated herein and upon publicly accessible
information available at the time of its completion. The professional opinions, recommendations
and guidance expressed in report are based on the information reviewed and professional
expertise. IEL makes no warranty as to the relevance and accuracy of these recommendations
until further review of this document has been undertaken and additional direction provided as to
its contents and findings.

Any comments, questions or suggestions on the content of this document may be directed to:

Regional Environmental Management
Alberta Environment
3rd Floor, Deer foot Square
2938 - 11 Street N. E.

Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7
Ph: (403)297-7602
Fx: (403)297-6069

Additional print copies of this document are available from:

Information Centre
Alberta Environment
Main Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820-106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 236
Ph: (780) 427-2700
Fx: (780) 422-4086

Outside of Edmonton dial 310-0000 for toll-free connection
Email: env.infocent@gov.ab.ca

Copyright in this publication, regardless of format, belongs to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Province of Alberta. Reproduction of this publication, in whole or in part, regardless of
purpose, requires the prior written permission of Alberta Environment.

© Her Majesty the Queen In right of the Province of Alberta, 2007.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 111

Acknowledgements

This report was jointly completed by Integrated Environments (2006) Ltd. and 02
Planning + Design Inc. Contributors to the report included the following individuals:

Integrated Environments (2006) Ltd.

Miles Scott- Brown
Scott Truswell
Greg Sauer

02 Planning+ Design Inc.

Doug Olson
Christina Rehbein

Dr. Mike Quinn of the Faculty of Environmental Design of the University of Calgary was
a technical advisor to the project and assisted in report review.

The Alberta Environment Project Team included the following individuals:

Lana Robinson
Karen Hughes-Field
Pat Kin near

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page IV

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. .............. ........... . 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION........................... . 3

2.1 . ...Objectives............................. . . . . . . . . . . . ...........5

2.2 . Project Approach................................ . .5

2.2.1 identify Key Ecosystem Services, Goods and Assets ....... ........................... 6

2.2.2 Develop Research Questions Regarding the Importance of Ecosystem

Goods and Services in southern Alberta . . . . 6

2.2.3 Qualify the Relationship Between Ecosystem Services, Goods and Natural

and Anthropogenic Assets............. . . 7

2.2.4 Rank the Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services...................... ........... 9

2.3 . ....Limitations to the Assessment............................................................... 10

3.0 INTRODUCTION TO ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES . . ...11

3.1 .......

3.2 .

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.3 .

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.4 . .

3.4.1

3.4.2

3.4.3

3.4.4
3.5.......

3.5.1

3.5.2

3.5.3

4,1 .

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.2.. .....

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.3.. .....

4.3.1

4.3.2

4.4.. .....

..Ecosystem Services.................................... . 11

..Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta ...........................................13

Regulating Services.. . . . 16

Supporting Services . . . . . 1 7

Provisioning Services . . 17

Cultural and Aesthetic Services.................................................................. 18

Interrelationships Between Ecosystem Services........................................ 18

..Assets in Southern Alberta . . ........21

Natural Assets . . 21

Anthropogenic Assets......... . .......................................25

..Goods in Southern Alberta.. . . . .......................27

Primary Sector of industry ..........................................................................28

Secondary Sector of Industry . . . . . . ..........28

Tertiary Sector of Industry . . ...........................29

Cultural and Aesthetic Goods...... . . . . . . . ..................30

..Conceptual Linkages Among Ecosystem Services, Assets and Goods

. . ...................................................................31

Linkages Between Assets and Services.............. . .....33

Linkages Between Assets and Services................... . 33

Linkages between Services and Goods . . ...........35

ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES IN SOUTHERN
ALBERTA . . .....37

..Ecosystem Services Important to the Maintenance of Assets ......... 37

Analytical Background . . ................37

Findings . . .......38

..Ecosystem Services and the Production of Goods............................ 39

Analytical Background . . 39

Findings........................................................................................... . 40

..Impact of the Expansion of Anthropogenic Assets on Ecosystem

Services . . . . 42

Capacity of Assets to Provide Services.. . . . .......44

Capacity of Assets and Services to Provide Goods . . .49

..Asset Condition and EGS . . . . . . 60

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page V

4.4.1 Asset Condition . 60

4.4.2 Potential Implications to Goods and Ecosystem Services from Changes in

Asset Condition . 63

4.4.3 Modeling Effects of Changes to Asset Condition . 67

4.5 . Overall Ranking of the Importance of Ecosystem Services . 68

4.5.1 Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods . 69

4.5.2 Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets . . 71

4.5.3 Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin . 74

4.5.4 Ability to Manage the Assets to Provide Services . 76

4.5.5 Overall Ranking of Ecosystem Services . 79

4.6 . Knowledge of Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta . 81

5.0 GAP ANALYSIS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS . 85

5.1 . High Priority . 85

5.2 . .Medium Priority . 88

5.3 . Low Priority . 89

6.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS . 91

7.0 REFERENCES . 95

8.0 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS . 97

9.0 APPENDICES . 101

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page VI

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Summary of Excel Spreadsheets Used to Analyze the Importance of Ecosystem

Goods and Services in Southern Alberta . 8

Table 3-1 : List of Ecosystem Services Important to Southern Alberta . 14

Table 3-2:lnterrelationships Between Ecosystem Services . 19

Table 3-3: Description of Natural Assets - Native Prairie . 21

Table 3-4: Description of Natural Assets - Forest . 23

Table 3-5: Description of Natural Assets - Aquatic . 24

Table 3-6: Description of Natural Assets - Geologic . 24

Table 3-7: Description of Anthropogenic Assets - Agricultural . 25

Table 3-8: Description of Anthropogenic Assets - Other . 26

Table 4-1 : Summary of Ecosystem Services Considered Important to the Maintenance of

Assets . 38

Table 4-2: Summary of Ecosystem Services Considered Important to the Production of

Goods . 41

Table 4-3: Metrics of Asset Condition . 61

Table 4-4: Potential Implications to Ecosystem Services . 64

Table 4-5:: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods . 70

Table 4-6: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets . 72

Table 4-7: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin . 75

Table 4-8: Ability to Manage Ecosystem Services . 77

Table 4-9: Overall Ranking of the Importance of Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta.. 80
Table 4-10: Ranking With Respect to Knowledge of Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta

. 82

Table 5-1 : Asset Condition Analyses . . 87

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 : Map of the EGS Assessment Area . 4

Figure 3-1: Conceptual Framework of the Function of Ecosystem Services . 12

Figure 3-2: Conceptual Linkages among Assets, Ecosystem services and Goods . 32

Figure 4-1 : Assets as a Percentage of Southern Alberta . 43

Figure 4-2: Index of Services Provided by Assets . 46

Figure 4-3: Index of Goods Directly Provided by Assets in Southern Alberta . 51

Figure 4-4: Index of the Long-Term Ability of Ecosystem Services to Produce Goods..... 54

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page VII

List of Appendices

Appendix 9-1: List of Ecosystem Services, Natural and Anthropogenic Assets and Goods

Considered as Part of the EGS Assessment . 101

Appendix 9-2 Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Assets . 102

Appendix 9-3: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets . 103

Appendix 9-4: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods . 104

Appendix 9-5: Importance of Assets to the Provision of Services . 105

Appendix 9-6: Importance of Assets to the Production of Goods........ . 106

Appendix 9-7: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Gas Regulation . 107

Appendix 9-8: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Climate Regulation . . 108

Appendix 9-9: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Disturbance Regulation . 109

Appendix 9-10: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Water Regulation . 110

Appendix 9-11: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Erosion Control and Sediment

Retention . Ill

Appendix 9-12: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Waste Treatment . 112

Appendix 9-13: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Biological Control . 113

Appendix 9-14: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Soil Formation . 114

Appendix 9-15: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Nutrient Cycling . 115

Appendix 9-16: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Pollination . 116

Appendix 9-17: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Habitat/Refugia . 117

Appendix 9-18: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Primary Production . 118

Appendix 9-19: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Water Supply . 119

Appendix 9-20: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Food Production . 120

Appendix 9-21: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Raw Materials . 121

Appendix 9-22: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Genetic Resources . 122

Appendix 9-23: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Aesthetic . 123

Appendix 9-24: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Spiritual and Cultural Use . 124

Appendix 9-25: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Science and Education . 125

Appendix 9-26: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Recreation . 126

Appendix 9-27: Goods Provided by Assets . 127

Appendix 9-28: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin Relative to the Production

of Goods . 128

Appendix 9-29: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin Relative to the

Maintenance of Assets . 129

Appendix 9-30: Ability to Manage Assets to Provide Ecosystem Services . 130

Appendix 9-31: Knowledge of the Function and Process of Ecosystem Services Relative to
Assets . 131

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 1

1.0 Executive Summary

Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural
ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life (Daily,
1997). These services provide us with valuable economic goods, are essential for the
ongoing maintenance of critical life-support systems and confer a wide range of highly
valued non-market benefits. The importance of the world’s ecosystem services is
substantial. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated their value at US$33 trillion per year,
about 1.8 times current global gross national product (GNP).

Evaluations of the importance of ecosystem goods and services in Alberta are in their
early stages. In southern Alberta, Alberta Environment is supporting an ecosystem
goods and services (EGS) assessment. The purpose of the project is to identify what
ecosystem goods and services are important to southern Alberta and how they help
sustain the region’s vibrant economy and quality of life.

The objectives of the EGS Assessment are to: a) inform people about ecosystem goods
and services and how they are important to economic production in southern Alberta, b)
help people understand how land use decisions and human activities impact these
services, c) determine what landscape patterns are required to sustain the ongoing
delivery of ecosystem goods and services and, d) undertake a gap analysis to identify
directions for further study and investigation.

The following research questions guided the EGS Assessment:

• How do ecosystem services support the maintenance of natural and
anthropogenic assets?

• How do ecosystem services support input to production of goods?

• How does the expansion of anthropogenic assets affect the capacity of the
natural assets to provide ecosystem services, and the capacity of the natural
assets to produce the goods?

• How does the condition of natural assets affect the quantity and quality of
services they provide?

• How can the relative importance of each ecosystem service be assessed?

The EGS Assessment used an approach and methodology similar to the Australian
Ecosystem Services Project. The first step was to develop a conceptual model of the
linkages (strong, moderate or weak) between groups of assets, ecosystem services and
goods. This was followed by the preparation of a series of Excel spreadsheets to
address the aforementioned research questions. The individual Excel spreadsheets
were combined to produce a ranking of the overall importance of the 20 ecosystem
services in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 2

Key findings of the EGS Assessment are:

• A total of 20 ecosystem services were assessed as to their importance in
producing goods or maintaining natural assets in southern Alberta. The
ecosystem services were categorized into four types: regulating, supporting,
provisioning, and cultural and aesthetic services. The latter group of services are
important in that they capture a wide variety of non-market benefits associated
with the conservation of natural assets;

• The conceptual model shows that strong linkages exist between natural assets
(native prairie, forest and aquatic assets) and regulating and supporting services.
Natural assets, agricultural assets and other anthropogenic assets are also
important to provisioning services. Provisioning services (water, food, raw
materials and genetic resources) are also important inputs to the production of
goods in the primary and secondary sectors of the southern Alberta economy.
Cultural services are most important to the production of goods in the tertiary
sector of the economy and producing cultural and aesthetic goods;

• A series of linked spreadsheet models was developed to demonstrate that
changes to the amount and distribution of natural assets affect the type, quantity,
and quality of ecosystem services. In turn, the sustainability of goods produced
by ecosystem services is affected. Expansion of anthropogenic assets at the
expense of natural cover types negatively affects the ability of ecosystems to
produce a wide range of goods and in the long term requires substantial external
inputs (e.g. fuel, fertilizer etc.) to offset the loss;

• The 20 ecosystem services are ranked as to their relative importance in southern
Alberta. The services of greatest importance (in rank order) are nutrient cycling
and disturbance regulation, erosion control and sediment retention, water supply,
biological control, and climate regulation. Although the assessment considered
each service independently, many services are inter-related and have a high
degree of dependence and integrated function;

• Independent of the overall ranking of ecosystem services, the current
understanding and knowledge of ecosystem services in southern Alberta were
considered. Knowledge of the function and process of ecosystem services was
highest for recreation, habitat/refugia, water regulation, erosion control and
sediment retention, raw materials, food production and primary production.
Conversely, knowledge of genetic resources, pollination and gas regulation is
least understood; and,

• Key themes emerging from the gap analysis include: 1) the need for
standardized methodologies and approaches to EGS Assessment; 2) the need to
incorporate economic valuation of market and non-market benefits associated
with EGS; 3) the need to review the results of the assessment in a public forum;

4) the need to couple the results of the EGS Assessment with spatially explicit
modelling and planning to address the issues of what and where to develop; and

5) the need to link technical EGS assessments and policy instruments for EGS
protection into the broader policy development and decision making framework
for land-use planning and resource allocation in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 3

2.0 Introduction

Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural
ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life (Daily,
1997). They provide goods of economic value to human beings, the ongoing
maintenance of critical life-support systems and confer a wide range of intangible
cultural, spiritual, aesthetic and other non-market benefits. The importance of these
services to current and future human welfare is substantial. Costanza et al. (1997)
estimates the economic value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital at
US$33 trillion per year, about 1 .8 times current global gross national product (GNP).

Interest in assessing the world’s ecosystem goods and services (EGS) is considerable.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was a four year effort (2001 - 2005) involving
more than 1300 scientists in 95 countries to assess the consequences of ecosystem
change to human welfare (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Ecosystem goods
and services assessments have also been undertaken at the country level. Initiated in
1999, the Australian Ecosystem Services Project is evaluating ecosystem services in six
regions of the country. Led by the Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO), the Ecosystem Services Project has a budget of $2 million and
involves a wide range of scientists, academics, resource managers, governments and
community representatives (Cork, Proctor, Shelton, Abel, & Binning, 2002; Ecosystem
Services Project, n.d.). Evaluations of the contribution of Canada’s ecosystem services
and natural capital have been undertaken in the boreal forest, the Mackenzie River
watershed and the settled areas of the country (Anielski & Wilson, 2003, 2007; Olewiler,
2004). Anielski and Wilson (2007) have estimated the value of ecosystem services
functioning within the Mackenzie River watershed are worth more than 10 times the
value of the GDP at $448.3 billion per year (Anielski & Wilson, 2007). Other major EGS
initiatives are underway at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University
of Vermont, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the
World Resources Institute.

Evaluations of the importance of ecosystem goods and services in Alberta are in the
early stages. In southern Alberta, Alberta Environment is supporting an ecosystem
goods and services (EGS) assessment. The purpose of this project is to identify what
ecosystem goods and services are important to southern Alberta and how they are key
in sustaining the region’s vibrant economy and quality of life. The geographical scope of
this assessment includes the Alberta portions of the South Saskatchewan River Basin,
the Grassland Natural Region, and the Cypress Hills (see Figure 2-1).

The EGS Assessment was initiated in support of the Southern Alberta Landscapes
(SAL) Regional Strategy. The study area for the EGS Assessment is the same as the
SAL region. The regional strategy will provide a foundation for environmental and
resource management in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 4

Figure 2-1 : Map of the EGS Assessment Area

The project was conceived as a two-phase effort; the second phase (this report) is a
subjective, qualitative evaluation of the relative importance of the ecosystem services to
society in southern Alberta. Phase 1 involved the completion of a survey of ecosystem
goods and services initiatives in southern Alberta and elsewhere (Integrated
Environments (2006) Ltd., 2007).

The remainder of the Phase 2 report is organized as follows:

Section 3 is an introduction to ecosystem goods and services, explaining what they are
and why they are important to southern Alberta. It also describes natural and
anthropogenic assets and how these are important to the provision of ecosystem
services and human derived goods. A conceptual model of the linkages is presented
describing the relationship between natural and anthropogenic assets, ecosystem
services, and goods produced in southern Alberta.

Section 4 provides a description of the role of ecosystem goods and services in
southern Alberta. It describes the role of ecosystem services in relation to the
maintenance of natural and anthropogenic assets and how they are important to the
provision of goods. It also describes, in a qualitative fashion, the impact of the
expansion of anthropogenic assets on the capacity of natural assets to provide
ecosystem services and goods. The relationship of the condition of natural assets (e.g.
fragmented, intact) and their ability to provide ecosystem services is discussed. Finally,
the relative importance of ecosystem services in southern Alberta is discussed.

Section 5 presents a gap analysis of what is required for further assessment of
ecosystem goods and services in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Section 6 is a summary of the key findings of the EGS Assessment.
Section 7 contains key references.

Section 8 provides a glossary of important terms.

Page 5

Section 9 contains Appendices of other supporting information and the analytical tables
used in the EGS assessment.

2.1 Objectives

The broad objectives of the EGS Assessment are to:

• Define what ecosystem goods and services are and why they are important to
maintaining the quality of life in southern Alberta;

• Provide an understanding of the value of high quality ecosystems in relation to
economic production in southern Alberta, and the possible consequences of land
use decisions, (i.e.. the relative impact of human activities on the supply of
ecosystem services);

• Highlight the relationship between the condition of an ecosystem (e.g. relatively
pristine versus heavily modified) and the ecosystem services it supplies;

• Help determine the portion and/or spatial pattern of landscapes that should
remain relatively undisturbed in southern Alberta in order to sustain the delivery
of ecosystem goods and services; and,

• Undertake a gap analysis identifying additional areas of investigation and future
directions for ecosystem goods and services assessment.

2.2 Project Approach

The following is a broad overview to the procedures and methods used in the EGS
Assessment. Specific methods, where relevant, are discussed in sections of the report
that follow.

The EGS Assessment made extensive reference to the process undertaken for the
Ecosystem Services Project in Australia, but was modified for the southern Alberta
context (Ecosystem Services Project, 2003, n.d.). Key steps in the project approach are
as follows:

• Lists of ecosystem services, goods and assets were identified;

• Research questions were finalized relative to understanding the relationship
between ecosystem services, goods and natural and anthropogenic assets in
southern Alberta;

• Individual spreadsheets were prepared to qualify the relationships posed by the
research questions; and,

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 6

• An overall summary spreadsheet was prepared to summarize the importance of
ecosystem services in southern Alberta.

2.2.1 Identify Key Ecosystem Services , Goods and Assets

The first step was to derive a list of ecosystem services, goods and
natural/anthropogenic assets (see Appendix 9-1). These were then used in all
subsequent analyses; sources of information are as follows:

• The list of natural and anthropogenic assets considered in the EGS Assessment
originated from Alberta Environment’s spatial information database and ALCES®
modelling analysis pertaining to natural regions of southern Alberta;

• The list of ecosystem services for southern Alberta was adapted from a variety of
sources (Anielski & Wilson, 2003, 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot, Wilson,
& Boumans, 2002; Ecosystem Services Project, n.d.; Farber et al., 2006;
Havstad et al., 2007; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Olewiler, 2004);
and,

• The list of goods was derived from a social and economic assessment completed
for southern Alberta (Global Training Inc., 2004).

2.2.2 Develop Research Questions Regarding the Importance of Ecosystem
Goods and Services in southern Alberta

Once the list of ecosystem goods, services and natural/anthropogenic assets had been
prepared, a number of research questions were posed to assess the importance of
ecosystem goods and services in southern Alberta. These questions arose from the
project terms of reference provided by Alberta Environment and are summarized as
follows:

• Explain and summarize how the ecosystem services support the maintenance of
each asset (both natural and anthropogenic);

• Explain and summarize how the ecosystem services support input to production
of the relevant goods;

• Explain and summarize the relationship between the condition of the natural
assets and the quantity and quality of services they provide; and,

• Provide the decision criteria and rank the relative importance of each ecosystem
service for each natural and anthropogenic asset.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 7

2.2.3 Qualify the Relationship Between Ecosystem Services, Goods and Natural
and Anthropogenic Assets

Spreadsheets were then prepared in Microsoft Excel to address each research question.
Relative importance values in response to each research question were qualified in
terms of high, moderate, and low value. Colours were assigned to each value in each
spreadsheet to aid in visual analysis of the results.

The assessment of these relative values is based on the review of the available relevant
literature and the professional opinion and expertise of the project team. Each category
of high, moderate and low was assigned on the following basis:

• A high value was assigned if a strong relationship or dependence was believed
to exist between both variables, or if there was good understanding and
knowledge in support of the assignment of the value, (e.g. the service of soil
formation is very important for the continued maintenance and existence of
mixed grass prairie);

• A moderate value was assigned if the relationship or dependence of both
variables was neither considered high nor low. (e.g. non-market recreational
opportunities are of moderate importance to goods produced from the
wholesale/retail sector); and,

• A low value was assigned if a weak relationship or dependence was believed to
exist between both variables (e.g. the service of aesthetic enjoyment of
functioning ecological systems and the production of oil and gas).

The assessment is considered preliminary and provides an opening basis for discussion
and further refinement in a wider public forum. The utility of using a spreadsheet
approach is that values can be readily changed and used in simulation or “what-if
exercises as part of a broader consultative exercise.

A list of spreadsheets and their respective table number by each research question is
provided in Table 2-1 (following).

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 8

Table 2-1: Summary of Excel Spreadsheets Used to Analyze the Importance of
Ecosystem Goods and Services in Southern Alberta

Research Question

Analysis

Report

Section

Table

Number

Explain and summarize how the
ecosystem services support the
maintenance of each asset
(both natural and
anthropogenic)

Importance of ecosystem services to
the maintenance of assets

4.1

4-1

Importance of assets to provide
ecosystem services

Appendix

9-5

Explain and summarize how the
ecosystem services support
input to production of the
relevant goods

Importance of ecosystem services to
the production of goods

4.2

4-2

Explain and summarize the

Impact of expanding anthropogenic

4.3

Fig 4-1,

relative impact of expanding

assets on the capacity of natural

4-2, 4-3,

anthropogenic assets on the
capacity of the natural assets to
continue to provide ecosystem
services, and the capacity of the
natural assets to continue to
produce the goods

assets to provide ecosystem services
and goods

4-4

Explain and summarize the
relationship between the
condition of the natural assets
and the quantity and quality of
services they provide

Condition of the asset and the
quantity of ecosystem services

4.4

4-3, 4-4

Provide the decision criteria and
rank the relative importance of
each ecosystem service for
each natural and anthropogenic
asset

Importance of ecosystem services at
the margin relative to the production
of goods

Appendix

9-28

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 9

Table 2-1 con’t: Summary of Excel Spreadsheets Used to Analyze the Importance
of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Southern Alberta

Research Question

Analysis

Report

Section

Table

Number

Importance of ecosystem services at
the margin relative to the
maintenance of assets

Appendix

9-29

Ability to manage assets to provide
ecosystem services

Appendix

9-30

Provide the decision criteria and

Relative importance (H, M, L) of

Appendix

9-7 to

rank the relative importance of
each ecosystem service for each
natural and anthropogenic asset

each services considering the
following:

• importance of the service to
production of goods

• importance of the service to
the maintenance of assets

• importance of the service at
the margin

• ability to manage the asset
for the service

• overall ranking

9-26

Availability of knowledge related
to the service in question

Considers current state of

knowledge regarding the service in a
particular asset. Does not include
availability or quality of data

Appendix

! 9-31

2.2.4 Rank the Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services

Similar to the Australian Ecosystem Services Project, the relative importance (high,
moderate, low) of each ecosystem service for each natural and anthropogenic asset in
southern Alberta was determined by considering the following criteria:

• The importance of the service to the production of goods;

• The importance of the service to the maintenance of assets;

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 10

• Relative importance at the margin (the impact of a small change in status of a
service on the production of a good or maintenance of an asset); and,

• Manageability (the ability to manage the asset to ensure the delivery of the
service).

In addition, an assessment of the state of knowledge of the service in each asset was
determined and given a separate ranking. The assessment of the state of knowledge
was based on the literature review of Phase 1 and the professional opinion of the project
team. This assessment can be refined through further review by knowledgeable
specialists with expertise in ecosystem function, processes and services and will result
in continuous improvement to the assessment.

A combined ranking of the importance of each ecosystem service in a given asset was
determined through a percentile determination of the sum of each individual cell values
to give an overall value of low, moderate or high. Reference notes were also placed in
each cell regarding assumptions and comments of the evaluation.

2.3 Limitations to the Assessment

As this is the first time that an assessment of ecosystem goods and services has been
completed in southern Alberta, and little data was available, the results of this
assessment are considered preliminary in nature. The report is intended to elicit further
discussion, review and refinement in a wider public forum. Therefore the results should
be viewed as an initial effort rather than a definitive conclusion. It is very likely that the
evaluations presented in this report will change during this process.

The following limitations framed the extent of the assessment:

• Decisions on the relative importance of ecosystem services were made based on
professional judgment of the project team. Additional analysis and review is
required involving a wider forum of professionals with expertise in a wide range
of subject areas;

• There was no intent to incorporate any spatial analysis into this phase of the
project. This could be done at a later phase, in conjunction with other modelling
efforts such as ALCES®;

® There was no attempt made to include economic data in order to quantify the
importance of ecosystem goods and services at this phase of analysis;

• The analysis of the impact of expansion of anthropogenic assets on ecosystem
services is relative as no weighting factors, such as economic importance, could
be assessed at this time; and,

• There was no involvement of the public in this initial assessment of ecosystem
goods and services.

Additional areas for research and investigation are provided in a gap analysis that
identifies priorities and next steps for further action (see Section 5).

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 1 1

3.0 Introduction to Ecosystem Goods and Services

This section provides an introduction to what ecosystem goods and services are, and
why they are important to maintaining the quality of life in southern Alberta. It is divided
into a discussion of the four broad categories of ecosystem services, followed by a
description of natural and anthropogenic assets, and finally an explanation of the various
sectors of the economy and goods provided.

To provide context to this discussion, Appendix 9-1 shows a list of ecosystem services,
natural and anthropogenic assets, and goods in southern Alberta that were considered
in the EGS Assessment.

3.1 Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural
ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life (Daily,
1997). Ecosystem services are important for the production of economic goods of value
to human beings, including crops, fodder, timber and industrial goods. In addition to this
benefit to the human economy, ecosystem services are also important for the provision
of essential life-support systems and also provide intangible cultural, spiritual, aesthetic
and other non-market benefits (Daily, 1997).

This cyclical relationship between ecosystem services, goods and assets is shown in
Figure 3-1 and involves a number of concepts;

• Natural and anthropogenic assets provide goods in southern Alberta through a
number of ecosystem services - e.g. the provision of fresh water for drinking,
industrial and agricultural purposes;

• Natural assets provide ecosystem services - e.g. native prairie grasslands
provide sequestration of carbon as part of gas regulation;

• Ecosystem services also act to maintain natural assets - e.g. the services of soil
formation and nutrient cycling are essential for the development and vigour of
vegetation communities in native prairie habitats; and,

• Ecosystem services also act to maintain natural and anthropogenic assets
through the breakdown of by-products from the production of goods - e.g. the
service of waste breakdown and cycling of nutrients from sewage outfalls in
southern Alberta rivers helps maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Figure 3-1: Conceptual Framework of the Function of Ecosystem Services

NATURAL AND
ANTHROPOGENIC
ASSETS

ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

<

GOODS

Native Prairie Assets

Regulating Services

1

"V

Primary Sector of
Industry

Forest Assets

Second a ry Sector of
Industry

Agricultural Assets

/. . \

Supporting Services

/ \

Tertiary Sector of
Industry

r; 3

V /

Provisioning Services

V /

Aquatic Assets

Cultural and Aesthetic

Geologic Assets

Cultural and Aesthetic
Services

Other Anthropogenic
Assets

y

Modified from (Shelton et al., 2001)

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 13

3.2 Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta

For the purpose of describing ecosystem services in southern Alberta, we have divided
them into four broad categories: regulating services (7), supporting services (5),
provisioning services (4) and cultural and aesthetic services (4).

Each service is described in Table 3-1 and in turn below:

• Regulating services are the large-scale benefits of life support functions
obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes such as gas regulation,
climate and water regulation, disturbance regulation, erosion control and
sediment retention, waste treatment and biological control (e.g. pests, predator
prey relationships).

• Supporting services are essential for the provision of all other services. They
are somewhat harder to define as they occur over long time periods, are not
readily noticeable, and may not be readily apparent to non-specialists. They
include services such as soil formation, primary production, nutrient cycling,
pollination and the provision of habitat.

• Provisioning services are those products obtained from ecosystems such as
water, food, fibre, crops, and genetic resources. Because of the importance of
non-renewable resources to the Alberta economy, we include consideration of
the production of oil and gas, coal and aggregates in our analysis under the
assessment of the service of raw materials.

• Cultural and aesthetic services are those non-material benefits that people
obtain from nature and ecosystems in southern Alberta. These include aesthetic
and cultural benefits, traditional use and spiritual benefits, scientific and
educational benefits and recreational benefits.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 14

Table 3-1: List of Ecosystem Services Important to Southern Alberta

Service

Description

Example

Regulating Services

Gas Regulation

Regulation of the chemical
composition of the atmosphere and
oceans

C02/02 balance, ozone for UVB
protection

Climate Regulation

Regulation of global temperature,
precipitation, and other climate
processes at global or local levels

GHG regulation, DMS (“sea smell” or
ocean gas) production affecting cloud
formation

Disturbance Regulation

Dampening of environmental
fluctuations and disturbance

Storm protection, flood control,
drought recovery

Water Regulation

Role of land cover in regulating
runoff and river discharge

Drainage and natural irrigation,
medium for transport

Erosion Control and
Sediment Retention

Retention of soil within an
ecosystem

Prevention of soil loss by wind or
runoff; storage of silt in lakes or
wetlands; protecting water quality

Waste Treatment

Recovery of mobile nutrients, and
removal or breakdown of excess
nutrients and compounds

Biodegradation, anaerobic digestion,
detoxification, dilution, protection of
water quality

Biological Control

Regulation of pest populations and
disease

Predator control of prey species, ;

reduction of herbivore by animals

Supporting Services

Soil Formation

Soil formation process

Weathering of rock and the
accumulation of organic material

Primary Production

Production of organic compounds
from C02, principally through the
process of photosynthesis

in terrestrial ecosystems, these
organisms are mainly plants, in
aquatic ecosystems they are algae

Nutrient Cycling

Storage, internal cycling, processing
and acquisition of nutrients

Nitrogen fixation, N, P and other
elemental or nutrient cycles

Pollination

Movement of floral pollinators

Provisioning of pollinators for the
reproduction of plant populations

Habitat/refugia

Habitat for resident and transient
populations

Nurseries, habitat for migratory or
resident species

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 15

Table 3-1 con’t: List of Ecosystem Services Important to Southern Alberta

Service

Description

Example

1 Provisioning Services

Water Supply

Storage and retention of water by
watersheds (includes surface and
subsurface)

Provisioning, storage and retention of
water by watersheds, reservoirs, and
aquifers

Food Production

That portion of gross primary
production extractable as food

Production of crops, fish, fodder,
game, nuts, fruits

Raw Materials

Natural resource production

Production of lumber, fuels, and
geological materials (aggregates,
minerals)

Genetic Resources

Sources of unique biological
materials and products

Medicine, genes for resistance to crop
pests, horticultural varieties of plants

Cultural and Aesthetic Services

Aesthetic

Sensory enjoyment of functioning
ecological systems

Artistic, photography, enjoyment

Spiritual and Traditional

Use

Spiritual and historic information

Traditional uses for aboriginal and
non-aboriginal populations; spiritual
sites and religious activities

Science and Education

Use of natural areas for scientific
and educational enhancement

Scientific research, science class field
trips, increasing public knowledge of
natural systems

Recreation

Opportunities for rest, refreshment,
and recreation

Eco-tourism, sport fishing, hiking,
boating, climbing

Descriptions and examples modified from Costanza et al., 1997; Ecosystem Services Project, n.d.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 16

3.2.1 Regulating Services

As described above, regulating services are those that provide essential life-support
services at a variety of scales ranging from global to microscopic levels.

Gas regulation is the regulation of the chemical composition of the oceans and
atmosphere. This involves regulation of the balance between carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
oxygen, methane, and other gases, and protection from the sun’s damaging rays (UVB)
provided by the ozone layer. It also involves the maintenance of good air quality and the
transport, dispersion and breakdown of pollutants. In southern Alberta, this service is
important for maintaining air quality in urban and rural areas and the regulation of
atmospheric gases from agricultural and industrial sources.

Climate regulation refers to the regulation of temperature, precipitation and other
climatic processes at both global and local levels. Climate regulation has a close
relationship with gas regulation through the regulation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. The importance of local climate in southern Alberta
to agricultural production has a significant economic effect.

Disturbance regulation refers to the dampening of environmental disturbances and
perturbations that can result in significant loss of human life and economic
consequences. This includes the services of flood prevention (regulation by forests and
wetlands) and storm protection. Forests on the Eastern Slopes of Alberta are important
in controlling spring runoff and minimizing flood damage.

Water regulation refers to the service of regulation of runoff and river discharges and
the maintenance of flows across the land surface. In semi-arid landscapes, such as
southern Alberta, as much as 65% of rainfall is actually captured, held and released
within the landscape. It is this balance between ‘blue’ and ‘green’ water that is essential
to the maintenance of these assets.

Erosion control and sediment retention refers to the process of minimizing soil loss
by wind and runoff processes through the role of the vegetative root matrix and soil biota
in soil retention. In southern Alberta, this is important for maintaining the fertility of
arable land. The process is also important for controlling the release of sediment to
aquatic systems and avoiding increased sedimentation in lakes and rivers.

Waste treatment refers to the recovery of mobile nutrients and removal or breakdown of
excess or xenic nutrients or compounds, including waste treatment, pollution control and
detoxification. An example in southern Alberta would be the breakdown of excess
nutrients from feedlot operations.

Biological control refers to the maintenance of predator prey relationships and control
of pests and diseases through species interactions. An example of the importance of
this service in southern Alberta is research into the biological control of grasshopper
populations as an alternative to chemical pesticides.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 17

3.2.2 Supporting Services

Supporting services are those required for the maintenance of other services and natural
assets.

Soil formation refers to the process of the weathering of parent rock and the
accumulation of organic matter necessary for plant growth. Soil formation is important
for the maintenance of native grasslands and those lands under agricultural practices.

Primary production refers to the conversion of sunlight and C02 into biomass. In
southern Alberta, primary production is essential to the growth of agricultural crops and
also the maintenance of healthy grasslands vital for livestock grazing.

Nutrient cycling refers to the storage, internal cycling, processing and acquisition of
nutrients through the various biogeochemical cycles (e.g. nitrogen, oxygen, sulphur,
phosphorus carbon, and other cycles). In southern Alberta, these “unseen” processes
are important for the maintenance of healthy and productive soils and ecosystems.

Pollination refers to the movement of plant genes, or gametes via insects, other
animals, wind and water. An example of the importance of this service in southern
Alberta is the pollination of hybrid canola seed by bees.

Habitat/refugia refers to habitat and space for both resident and migratory species of
plants and animals. This includes important areas of breeding and rearing habitat, and
those areas of habitat used in the spring and fall months by migratory species. An
example of this service in southern Alberta would be the Canadian Forces Base Suffield
National Wildlife Area.

3.2.3 Provisioning Services

Provisioning services are those that provide goods of value to human beings. They
include the supply of fresh water, the provision of food, fibre, lumber, fuels and fodder
and other raw materials and the provision of genetic materials derived from plants and
animals. .

Water supply refers to the storage and retention of water by watersheds, reservoirs and
aquifers. In southern Alberta, a dependable supply of fresh water is vital for industry
(e.g. food manufacturing/processing, oil and gas), agriculture (e.g. irrigation), human
consumption (e.g. drinking, bathing, cooking, watering) and power production (Oldman
River reservoir). Water is also an important focus of recreational activities in southern
Alberta.

Food production refers to the conversion of the sun’s energy into edible plants and
animals used by humans. This includes fish, game, crops, livestock and subsistence
hunting, fishing and gathering. Agriculture is an important contributor to the economy of
southern Alberta.

Raw materials refer to that portion of natural resource production that is extractable as
raw materials. Because of the importance of the oil and gas industry to the economy of
southern Alberta and its’ competition for land use with other sectors, it was decided to
expand the definition of provided by Costanza et al. (1997) to include non-renewable

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 18

resources in the list of raw materials. Raw materials, within the context of this
assessment in southern Alberta, include forest products, oil and gas, coal, minerals and
aggregates.

Genetic resources are those sources of unique biological materials and products that
have both current and potential future usage. They include medicines, pharmaceuticals,
genetic material for pest/pathogen resistance and increased yields, genetic material for
animal breeding and other commercial applications.

3.2.4 Cultural and Aesthetic Services

In addition to the aforementioned regulating, supporting and provisioning services, there
are a suite of other intangible benefits arising from ecosystem services. These include
the various cultural and aesthetic services derived from natural and anthropogenic
assets. Since these services provide non-market goods, they require valuation using
other methods than those typically applied for assessing the value of market-based
goods.

Aesthetic services are defined as those that provide sensory enjoyment of functioning
ecosystems, such as the provision of scenic views. In southern Alberta, Dinosaur
Provincial Park provides scenic views and a unique visual setting amidst the surrounding
agricultural and native prairie landscapes.

Spiritual and traditional use services provide spiritual and historic value, incorporating
traditional uses of aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and the use and enjoyment of
nature or landscapes that provide religious, heritage, cultural and existence value.

Science and education services refer to the use of natural areas for scientific and
educational enhancement. Waterton Lakes National Park provides educational and
interpretive programs to visitors and serves as a scientific benchmark for research into
natural processes and human derived change.

Recreation services are those that provide opportunities for rest, refreshment and
recreation. These services provide non-market recreational benefits and include
activities such as eco-tourism, bird and nature watching, hiking, boating, climbing and
sports fishing. A wide variety of recreational benefits are provided by lakes in southern
Alberta, such as Kinbrook Island and Beauvais Lake Provincial Parks.

3.2.5 Interrelationships Between Ecosystem Services

Many ecosystem services are not stand-alone services but are in fact intrinsically related
with one or a suite of other services. Table 3-2 shows how these 20 ecosystem services
are directly interrelated to each other, or not directly related or dependent upon each
other.

For example, the service of climate regulation is related to and affects or is affected by
the services of gas regulation, disturbance regulation, water regulation, erosion and
sediment retention, pollination, habitat/refugia, primary productions, water supply, food
production, raw materials and all four cultural/aesthetic services.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 19

Table 3-2: Interrelationships Between Ecosystem Services

The

Interelationship of
Ecosystem
Services.

Gas regulation

Climate regulation

Disturbance

regulation

Water regulation
Erosion control
and sediment
retention

Waste treatment

Biological control

Soil formation

Nutrient cycling

Pollination

Habitat/ Refogia

Primary

production

Water supply

Food production

Raw materials

Genetic resources

Aesthetic

Spiritual and
traditional use

Science and
education

<u

CC

Services are directly interrelated and/or dependent
Services are not related nor dependent
I Redundant relationship

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 20

Indirect relationships between services are not shown. For example, a reduction in
water supply may lead directly to a reduction in primary productivity (assuming water
was a limiting factor for plant growth). Where two services are shown to be not related,
there is often an indirect relationship (typically involving a 3rd service) between the
services. For example, a relationship between soil formation and pollination is not
indicated. However, if one considers a third service, primary production, an indirect
relationship is revealed. Primary production often relies on pollination for the successful
propagation of plant species, and soil formation, in part, relies on primary production for
a source of organic matter. Therefore, soil formation indirectly relies on pollination
through primary production. If the service of pollination was impacted, it appears likely
that soil formation would also be impacted.

It is likely that if all direct and indirect relationships between various services were
considered, that each service would be interdependent in some way with all other
services. This will, however, not be the case in all situations. Relationships between
services are not consistent between different ecosystems and an understanding of the
specific traits of the species that make up each ecosystem is necessary (Havstad et al.
2007). This type of analysis may be a beneficial next step in this research, although the
goals of the analysis (what research question is to be answered) should be considered
carefully.

This analysis and other similar research have created conceptual divisions within the
actual network of ecosystem functions by creating the concept of ecosystem services.
This is done to facilitate human understanding and analysis. While this is a necessary
step to begin to integrate the concept of EGS into our society, it can also lead to
problems. The array of functions provided by nature is not inherently amenable to
division and classification. One example is the division of water related functions into the
ecosystem services called water regulation and water supply. In some cases the
separation of the regulating service (water regulation) and the provisioning service
(water supply) makes sense. This is useful where there is a need to focus on the
benefits to humans (provisioning) versus the ecosystem function irrespective of human
use (regulating). However, on a functional level, these services are very hard to
separate. Havstad et al. (2007) stress that topography, soil, and vegetation properties
(all related to the function of water regulation) directly impact the amount of water
available to groundwater recharge (in many cases impacting the provisioning and supply
of water to humans). Thus when looking past the conceptual divisions of ecosystem
function the deeply interconnected nature of ecosystem services becomes evident. If
one service is impacted, it becomes a complex but critical task to assess which other
services may be impacted or lost. More work is needed to define the extent and
dependency of these relationships in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 21

3.3 Assets in Southern Alberta

An asset is defined as something valuable or useful. The Ecosystem Goods and
Services Assessment considers a wide range of natural and anthropogenic assets
across southern Alberta. The list of assets was derived from Alberta Environment’s
spatial database. The intent of dividing these assets into natural and anthropogenic
origins was to allow for future spatial modelling of asset value and consequences of
changing the distribution of assets across the southern Alberta landscape.

3.3.1 Natural Assets

Natural assets refer to the stock of natural resources from which many goods are
produced in southern Alberta. For the purposes of the EGS Assessment, they have
been categorized into native prairie, forest, aquatic, and geological assets (see Tables 3-
3 to 3-8). A description of each asset in these categories is provided in the tables that
follow.

Table 3-3: Description of Natural Assets - Native Prairie

Native Prairie Asset

Description

Example

Needle and Thread Dry Mixed
Grass

This plant community is located
on nearly level slopes that are
moderate to well-drained. The
range sites are generally loamy
and soils are Orthic and

Solonetzic Brown.

Western porcupine grass, needle
and thread grass, western wheat
grass, blue grama grass, June
grass, plains wheat grass,
pasture sagewort and silver
sagebrush.

Northern Wheat Dry Mixed Grass

This plant community refers to
plants found within the Cypress
and Milk River Uplands of
southern Alberta. The range
sites are generally loamy and the
soils are Orthic Dark Brown,

Rego Dark Brown and Dark

Brown Solodized Solonetz.
Drainage is moderate to well-
drained.

Needle and thread, June grass,
northern wheatgrass, western
wheatgrass, Idaho fescue,
Kentucky bluegrass, snowberry
and sagebrush. |

Needle and Thread Sand Grass -
Dry Mixed Grass

This plant community is
characterized by clayey soils that
are moderate to well-drained.

The slope ranges from very
gentle to gentle and the aspect is
southerly. The soils are Orthic
Regosolic and Orthic Brown.

Pasture sagewort, prickly pear
cactus, western wheatgrass,
sandberg bluegrass, blue grama
grass, June grass, green needle
grass and foxtail barley.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 22

Table 3-3 con’t: Description of Natural Assets - Native Prairie

Native Prairie Asset

Description

Example

Mixed Grass

This plant community occurs east
of the foothills within the
grasslands natural region, and is
characterized by moister soils
than found in the dry mixed grass
areas. It has undulating plain,
with some rolling to hummocky
areas and dark brown chernozem
soils.

Rough fescue, porcupine grass,
June, sand, western wheatgrass;
silver sagebrush.

Fescue Grasslands

The Fescue Grasslands are
located on moderate to strong
slopes that are well-drained to
rapidly drained. The range sites
are variable, ranging from thin
breaks to steep slopes to gravel
and shallow gravel. The dominant
soil types are Black Chernozem
and Orthic Dark Brown.

Western wheatgrass, rough
fescue, parry’s oat grass, needle
and thread grass, silver
sagebrush, June grass, western
porcupine grass and Idaho
fescue.

Rocky Mountain and Parkland
Fescue

The Parkland Fescue plant
community forms a narrow
transition band between the
Foothills Fescue subregion and
the Montane Subregion.
Predominant soils are Black and
Dark Brown Chernozems.

Drainage is moderate to well-
drained and the slope is variable.

Willow, rough fescue, parry’s
oatgrass, sandgrass, and Idaho
fescue.

Prairie Treed and Riparian
Cottonwood

The Prairie Treed and Riparian
Cottonwood plant community
occurs on older alluvial bars of
major streams and rivers. Soils
are typically Regosols and range
sites vary from silt loam to silty
clay. Soils are generally poorly
drained with high available water
early in growing season.

Narrow-leafed cottonwood, green
ash, saskatoon, western
clematis, choke cherry, poison
ivy, skunkbrush, golden currant,
reed canary grass, bluegrass,
slender wheatgrass, perennial
ragweed, Indian hemp, prairie
sagewort and showy milkweed.

Prairie Shrub

The Prairie Shrub community has
very diverse attributes. Range
sites vary from loamy to blowout,
and the soils are Solonetzic

Brown, Cumulic Regosol and

Orthic Black. Drainage is well-
drained to rapidly drained and the
slope ranges from gentle to
steep.

Silver sagebrush, western
porcupine grass, needle and
thread grass, snowberry, green
needle grass, juniper, sand
grass, rough fescue, bluebunch
fescue and western wheatgrass.

Badlands and Thin breaks

The Badlands are defined as
nearly barren or barren lands,
with exposure to softrock,
hardrock, or surficial geology.

Thin breaks are areas with a
veneer (<1 meter or less) of
parent material overlaying
softrock or bedrock. Bedrock will
be at or near the soil surface.

Northern wheatgrass, June
grass, sedge, thread-leaved
sedge and moss phlox.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 23

Table 3-4: Description of Natural Assets - Forest

Forest Asset

Description

Examples

Forest Shrub

Includes areas of forest that are
open or closed shrub meadows,
pastures, or shrubby wetlands.

Common wild rose, thorny
buffaloberry, Red-Osier dogwood.

Hardwood Forest

Forest stands that are
predominately deciduous
(greater than 80% of the stand).

Trembling aspen, balsam poplar.

Mixed Wood Forest

The Mixedwood plant community
is characterized by low relief and
level to undulating terrain. Soils
are typically Gray luvisols in well-
drained, upland till sites and

Eutric brunisols in coarse-
textured sandy uplands.

Aspen poplar, balsam poplar,
white spruce and balsam fir.

Spruce and Fir Forest

Forest stands that are pure
conifer types having white
spruce, Engelmann spruce, black
spruce or a balsam fir or Douglas
fir as more then 30% of the
stand, black spruce is also
included but represents a very
small amount. Forest riparian is
also included in this category.

White spruce, Engelmann spruce
and Douglas fir.

Pine Forest

Pure conifer forest stand with
lodge pole pine as the leading
species within the stand.

Lodgepole pine, jack pine, limber
pine.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 24

Table 3-5: Description of Natural Assets - Aquatic

Aquatic Asset

Description

Examples

Lentic (Standing)

Lentic water bodies are basins
that lack a defined channel and
floodplain. They can be
permanent or intermittent bodies
of water.

Lakes, reservoirs, potholes, j

marshes, ponds and stockponds.

Lotic (Flowing)

Lotic water bodies are running
water systems such as rivers,
streams, and drainage ways.

The channel is an open conduit,
which periodically or
continuously, carries flowing
water.

Perennial streams, intermittent
channels, ditches, etc.

Wetlands

Forest and Prairie

Wetlands are areas that under
normal circumstances have
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils and wetland hydrology. The
analysis of assets considered
forest and prairie wetlands
separately to remain consistent
with Alberta Environment’s land
cover types.

Bogs, fens, marshes, sloughs, wet
meadows and riparian zones.

Table 3-6: Description of Natural Assets - Geologic

Geologic

Description

Example

Bare Soil and Rock

Areas of exposed rock and soil
related specifically to the non
grasslands areas of the regions.
Includes exposed mountain tops,
scree slopes and stream valley
bottoms that are without
vegetation.

Mountain tops; scree slopes.

Ice

Areas of permanent ice related to
glaciers only.

Glaciers.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 25

3.3.2 Anthropogenic Assets

Anthropogenic assets are defined as man-made assets, the footprint of which now
occupies areas of former natural assets. For the purposes of this assessment, they
have been divided into agricultural landscapes and other anthropogenic assets. A
description of each asset type is provided in the tables that follow.

Table 3-7: Description of Anthropogenic Assets - Agricultural

Agricultural Assets

Description

Examples

Cereal Crops

Cereal crops are mostly grasses
cultivated for their edible grains or
seeds.

Barley, buckwheat, canary seed, grain
corn, oats, proso millet, rye and wheat.

Oilseeds and Legumes

Legumes are important rotational
crops as they fix nitrogen and
produce nutritionally valuable seeds
for human and animal consumption.

Canola, flax, hyola, mustard, safflower,
sunflower, chickpeas, dry beans, dry
peas and lentils.

Specialty Crops

Specialty crops generally require
irrigation. These crops are gaining
in popularity because of high value,
improved plant breeding, machine
development and better processing
and marketing options.

Alfalfa seed, catnip, mint, onions,
soybeans, sugar beets, sweet corn,
timothy, turf sod and potatoes.

Forage Crops

Forage crops include those crops
meant for beef, horse or pig feed.

Alfalfa, oats silage, silage corn, sweet
clover, milk-vetch and white clover.

Tame Pasture

Pasture includes both cut and
perennial crops including corn,
wheatgrass, hay, fescue and
others. In some cases this is an
estimated value rather than an
inventory.

Bromegrass, creeping red fescue, j

crested wheatgrass, meadow 1

bromegrass, meadow fescue and
crown vetch.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 26

Table 3-8: Description of Anthropogenic Assets - Other

Other Anthropogenic
Assets

Description

Example

Roads and Rails

All major and minor roads which
would at some point be used by
either light or heavy duty vehicles,
for all uses including industrial and
recreational and are considered
permanent landscape features that
exist outside of urban areas (which
would be considered urban). All
active or non-active existing
railways on the landscape.

Highways, township gravel roads,
forestry roads, oil and gas,
recreational roads, facilities access j

and railroads.

Rural/Ag Residential

Residential home sites specifically
associated with agricultural areas.

House and surrounding outbuildings
and 'yard' area.

Cities and Towns

All urban areas in which the entire
area is counted as a 'mixed use'
zone made up of roads, houses,
parks, schools, businesses, etc.

Cities, towns, villages, summer
villages.

Well Sites

The area of each active or inactive
wellsite, which has not been
reclaimed. The areas are based on
an average well site size.

Active oil well.

Pipelines, Transmission
and Seismic Lines

Area of disturbance created by
installing pipelines, or performing
seismic activity. Only large
transmission lines that are not
associated with roadways are
included.

Pipeline (occurring on native prairie),
seismic (located in forested areas) and
transmission lines.

Feedlots

All feedlots are based on an
average size as calculated using
statistical information when
inventory information was absent

Confined feeding operations, Beef
finishing lots.

Recreation -
Campgrounds and Ski

Hills

Service areas of recreation
including campgrounds, ski hills,
golf courses and day use areas.
These don't include areas, which
fall within urban areas, it also
doesn't include walking or hiking
trails or areas defined as recreation
areas which have no services.

Westcastle ski hill, Sunshine ski hill,
Beaver Mines campground, Little Bow
campground, etc.

Mines and Pits

Gravel pits are based on an
average size and a statistical
calculation within the grassland
area, and actual inventory within
the forest area, all coalmines are
direct interpretations of actual
areas.

Coalmines, limestone quarries, gravel
pits and burrow pits.

Industrial Sites

All industrial plants and processing
facilities that do not fall within urban
areas, based on an average size
calculation.

Potato processing plant, saw mills etc.

Reservoirs

Man-made Lentic water bodies.

Keho, Oldman, Travers, St. Mary’s
and Waterton Reservoirs.

Canals

Man-made major canals,
aqueducts and ditches.

Waterton canal, St. Mary’s canal, etc.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 27

3.4 Goods in Southern Alberta

For the purposes of this assessment, goods are defined as all things produced in
southern Alberta that are of value to humans. Similar to the Australian Ecosystem
Services Project, this project has largely emphasized the role of natural assets in the
production of goods, although the role of manufactured capital, technology, labour and
social institutions are also notable inputs to the production of goods (Ecosystem
Services Project, n.d.). Many of the goods produced in southern Alberta are well
documented and immediately come to mind, given our economic dependence on them
for consumption or export. Examples include goods such as beef and other livestock,
grains and other crops, and oil and gas. The scope of goods considered in this
assessment however is much broader than these easily quantifiable tangible goods.
Intangible goods such as recreational opportunities and aesthetic, spiritual and existence
values are also goods produced by natural and man-made assets in southern Alberta,
although their economic value is often largely discounted or wholly disregarded by
neoclassical economics.

While the specific goods produced in a landscape differ depending upon the type of
natural asset, the economic sectors have been categorized under the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) system. The SIC is based upon the Fisher-Clark Model
named after the individuals who first subdivided the economy into three categories or
sectors (primary, secondary, tertiary) in the 1930s (Clark, 1940; Fisher, 1939). The
model is still relevant today in both mainstream economics and national accounts, such
as Statistics Canada, although with some variations and additions within the sectors.
The industries in each of these sectors are also well known.

The EGS Assessment uses the Standard Industrial Classification system of primary,
secondary and tertiary sectors. It also incorporates aspects of the Socio-economic
Aspects study prepared for Alberta Environment (Global Training Inc., 2004). The
Socio-economic Aspects Study prefers instead to use primary, manufacturing, and
service categories to describe the sectors of the southern Alberta economy. A twelve-
sector aggregation provided in the Socio-economic Aspects study was adopted with
minor modifications.

In addition to the aforementioned primary, secondary and tertiary sectors, the EGS
Assessment also considered valued intangible goods, not represented in the SIC.
Cultural, spiritual and aesthetic goods include those “goods” not represented in
economic accounts such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Unlike the goods in the
primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors, cultural and aesthetic goods are somewhat less
obvious and more difficult to value, compared to tangible goods.

The following provides a description of each sector and a listing of the industries that
have been organized into each sector (see Appendix 9-1). Furthermore, while the
sectors and the industries are not goods in and of themselves, they do lead to the
production of goods. Therefore, the term “goods” is used interchangeably with the
industry that produces the good.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 28

3.4. 1 Primary Sector of Industry

The primary sector involves the conversion of natural resources into primary products.
Most products from this sector are considered as raw materials for other industries. The
following six categories of primary goods were considered in southern Alberta:

• Agriculture - Crop / Vegetable - refers to those commercially produced crops
arising from both irrigated and non-irrigated lands;

• Agriculture - Livestock - a wide array of livestock are currently being produced
in southern Alberta by farmers and ranchers. Beef, bison, elk, goats, poultry,
pork, and sheep are typically being raised in either a confined (feedlot) or non-
confined (range/grazing) setting;

• Oil and Gas - refers to the naturally occurring non-renewable hydrocarbon
compounds in liquid or gaseous states that are trapped in underground rock or
reservoirs, and are the largest single source of resource development revenue in
Alberta;

• Forestry and Forest Products - a renewable natural resource that provides the
raw materials of lumber and pulp that can be transformed into a wide array of
useable products;

• Mining (aggregates, coal) - surface or underground mining of the earth’s crust
produces naturally occurring coal and metallic and non-metallic minerals; and,

• Subsistence - hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, other - while often
associated with traditional hunter-gatherer societies, subsistence is used in the
southern Alberta context to represent a number of practices which result in food
provision through non-commercial means.

Several modifications were made to derive the list of primary goods. Given its overall
importance to southern Alberta, and in consideration of differing inputs and impacts,
agriculture was divided into Agriculture - CropA/egetable and Agriculture - Livestock.
Further, the production of agricultural goods was distinguished from the processing of
agricultural products into goods (the latter was considered a secondary good).

Oil and gas is a good that does not show up in the Socio-economic Aspects Study, but
rather is considered to be part of the mining sector. Given the significance of this
industry to southern Alberta, and the goods that depend upon its production, in addition
to the specialized nature of this activity, oil and gas was analyzed as a separate good
from mining.

The Socio-economic Aspects Study (p. 16) chose to aggregate fishing and mining as a
single sector. Because these goods produced are too dissimilar to allow aggregation,
the EGS Assessment considered them as separate goods. The activities of hunting and
fishing were aggregated with fishing and trapping to create the good which is referred to
as “subsistence”, in order to capture the traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

3.4.2 Secondary Sector of Industry

The secondary sector, which is also referred to interchangeably as the manufacturing
sector, includes those economic sectors that create a finished, usable product such as

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 29

manufacturing and construction. This sector of industry generally takes the output of the
primary sector and manufactures finished goods or products to a point where they are
suitable for use by other businesses, for export, or sale to domestic consumers. Within
the secondary sector of industry, the following three categories of goods produced in
southern Alberta were identified:

• Agriculture - Processing - the primary production of both crop and livestock
agriculture products creates a substantial opportunity to transform these outputs
into intermediate or finished goods (e.g. potatoes to French fries, or beef to
steaks);

• Oil and Gas - Refining - this industrial process transforms crude oil into a more
useful petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating
oil, kerosene, and natural gas into liquefied petroleum gas for transport; and,

• Other Manufacturing - refers to all secondary production which is not covered
by agriculture or oil and gas refining such as the milling of lumber into wood
products, etc.

As noted above, agriculture production and agricultural processing are split among the
primary and secondary sectors.

3.4.3 Tertiary Sector of Industry

The tertiary sector, or alternatively service sector, is one of the three main industrial
categories of a developed economy. According to some economists, the service tends
to be wealth consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth producing. The tertiary sector
of industry involves the provision of services to businesses as well as final consumers.
Within the tertiary sector, the following seven goods produced in southern Alberta were
identified:

• Construction - refers to the building or assembly of any infrastructure on a site
or sites and includes all sub-trades that are required to successfully undertake a
given project;

• Transportation and utilities - includes the transportation and storage of all
goods, in addition to utilities such as water, sewer, electricity and
communications;

• Trade (wholesale/retail) - comprises both wholesaling and retailing
merchandise and also rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise
that represents the final step in the distribution of merchandise;

• Health and education - are goods under the jurisdiction of the provincial
government of Alberta and comprises pre-school, primary, secondary, post¬
secondary and vocational education and all facets of the formal and informal
health care systems;

• Tourist services - encompass travel for predominantly recreational or leisure
purposes, and involves a number of tangible and intangible elements;

• Government (the public sector) and non-profit -pertains to the administration
of government services and delivery of goods by and for the government,
whether national, provincial or municipal. The downloading of services by

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 30

government has led, in some cases, to the emergence of the non-profit sector to
act in this capacity; and,

• Other services - this category allows for the categorization of niche services
that do not logically fit within any of the preceding categories.

The seven tertiary sectors used to analyze the importance of ecosystem services in
southern Alberta are the same as the aggregated sectors developed by Global Training
for the Socio-economic Aspects Study (p. 16).

3.4.4 Cultural and Aesthetic Goods

Cultural and aesthetic goods considered in the EGS Assessment included the following
five categories:

• Biodiversity is defined as the variety of life in all its forms, levels and
combinations, including ecosystem diversity, species diversity and genetic
diversity (IUCN, UNEP, & WWF, 1991). A high or higher level of biodiversity
relative to native conditions is a normative goal for ecosystem management. It
should also be noted that biodiversity is highly interdependent with all other
cultural and aesthetic goods;

• Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and
taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. Aesthetic goods are
those goods produced in the landscape that provide sensory pleasures, such as
scenic views;

• Cultural goods are goods found in the landscape that have cultural significance.
While traditional uses of First Nations are a significant component of this “good”,
cultural goods refers to all cultures existing in the landscape (European, Asian,
Latin, etc.);

• Future options refer to opportunities that could arise in the future, but for
whatever reason, humans have yet to recognize their value. An example of a
future option may be a plant growing in southern Alberta that has healing
properties that have yet to be identified; and,

• Non-market recreational opportunities are similar to tourist services; however,
unlike tourist services, non-market recreational opportunities have no direct
monetary value attached to them. They include activities such as hiking, bird
watching, cross-country skiing, etc.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 31

3.5 Conceptual Linkages Among Ecosystem Services. Assets and

Goods

In order to begin to understand the relationships between assets, ecosystem services
and goods and to help formulate the analytical Excel tables needed for the EGS
Assessment, a conceptual model of linkages was developed. The conceptual model
examines the linkages (strong, moderate or weak) between groups of assets (native
prairie, forest, agricultural, aquatic, geologic and other anthropogenic), ecosystem
services (regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural) and goods (primary,
secondary, tertiary and cultural/aesthetic). To assist in the formulation of the model, an
analysis of the relationship between assets and ecosystem services was completed, the
results of which are shown in Figure 3-2 and Appendix 9-2. The conceptual model also
was used in the determination of the importance of ecosystem services in southern
Alberta as shown in Appendices 9-7 to 9-26.

A number of assumptions helped guide the development of the conceptual model as
follows:

• Assets (both natural and anthropogenic) provide services which are important to
the production of goods, or the maintenance of the asset (more relevant in the
case of natural assets);

• There is no overall directionality expressed in the linkages - in some cases this
may be unidirectional, in other cases bi-directional. The lack of supporting data
and coarseness of the analysis (e.g. groups of services, assets and goods) only
allowed for the establishment of linkages without assessment of directionality.
This could be considered at a later date; and,

• Because assets, services and goods are considered as groups of assets, no
conclusions could be drawn with respect to specific assets, services and goods.
These have been evaluated using the Excel spreadsheet tables that follow.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Natural and
Anthropogenic
Assets

Native Prairie

Forest

Agricultural

Aquatic

Geologic

Other Anthropogenic

Alberta Environment

Page 32

Figure 3-2: Conceptual Linkages among Assets, Ecosystem services and Goods

Ecosystem

Services

Regulating Services

Supporting Services

Provisioning Services

Cultural and Aesthetic
Services

Goods

Primary Sector of
Industry

Secondary Sector of
Industry

Tertiary Sector of
Industry

Cultural and
Aesthetic Goods

Strong Link
Moderate Link
Weak Link

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 33

3.5. 1 Linkages Between Assets and Services

As part of formulation of the conceptual model to describe the linkages between
ecosystem services, goods and assets in southern Alberta, a cross-tab analysis between
ecosystem services and assets was undertaken to assess the strength of their
relationship (see Appendix 9-2).

• Positive - there is a highly positive relationship between the asset and the
service;

• Somewhat positive - the relationship between the asset and the service while
positive, is not as strong;

• Neutral - there is neither a positive or negative relationship or effect between
assets and services;

• Somewhat negative - the asset may impact the service in a slightly negative
manner; and,

• Negative - the asset may have a highly negative relationship or effect on the
provision of a service.

The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix 9-2 and described below:.

• Not surprisingly there is a positive relationship between the existence of natural
assets (both terrestrial and aquatic) and the provision of ecosystem services;

• Conversely there is a negative relationship between anthropogenic assets and
the provision of ecosystem services, in that human activities can impact on
ecosystem services, yet this effect is not normally considered in economic
accounts;

• Cities and towns, mines and industrial sites have the greatest negative effect on
ecosystem services. Cities and towns however have a very positive relationship
with science/education and recreation; and,

• There is a somewhat negative relationship between agricultural assets and
ecosystem services. This relationship shows the importance of ecosystem
services to the production of agricultural goods, while at the same time
agricultural production can impact ecosystem services or rely on man-made
goods as a replacement.

3.5.2 Linkages Between Assets and Services

The linkage model (Figure 3-2) provides an initial conceptual understanding of how
assets, ecosystem services and goods are related to one another in southern Alberta.
The model can be further refined once more data becomes available, and during part of
the process of further stakeholder consultation. Discussion of the linkages is organized
by strong, moderate and weak.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 34

Strong Linkages

A strong linkage is one where there is a high dependence between the asset and the
service, in that the asset is important for providing the service or the service is important
to the maintenance of the asset.

• There are strong links between natural assets (native prairie, forest and aquatic)
and all four groups of ecosystem services (regulating, supporting, provisioning,
and cultural). These linkages were considered strong in that these assets and
services are important for the production of goods, additionally, supporting and
regulating services are important for the maintenance of natural assets;

• There are strong links between agricultural assets and provisioning services that
are bi-directional. There is a strong dependence of agriculture on a stable water
supply and raw material inputs such as fertilizer and fuel, the production of
agricultural crops, and the cultural, traditional importance of agriculture to
southern Alberta;

• There are strong links between other anthropogenic assets and provisioning
services due to the dependence on these assets on provisioning services for the
production of goods or as inputs into the production process (e.g. stable water
supply); and,

• There are strong links between other anthropogenic assets and cultural services
which reflect the cultural importance of cities and rural areas, the recreational
importance of commercial recreational activities and the perceived negative
aesthetic impacts of industrial development on the land base in southern Alberta.

Moderate Linkages

A moderate linkage is one where there is a lesser dependence between the asset and
the service, in that the asset is of lesser importance for providing the service or the
service is of lesser importance to the maintenance of the asset.

• There are moderate links between geologic assets and provisioning services due
to the interrelationship between ice and a stable water supply in southern
Alberta, and the importance of the service of climate regulation on maintaining
glaciers; and,

• There are moderate links between geological assets and cultural services in
southern Alberta due to the aesthetic values associated with scenery of the
Rocky Mountains and also the non-market recreational benefits they provide.

Weak Linkages

A weak linkage is one where there is a minimal dependence between the asset and the
service in that the asset is of little importance for providing the service or the service is of
little importance to the maintenance of the asset.

• There are weak links between agricultural assets and regulating and supporting
services that indicates that the services can be supplanted and reflect significant

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 35

external inputs (e.g. fertilizer) required for agricultural production in southern
Alberta;

• There are weak links apparent between other anthropogenic assets and
regulating and supporting services, but more data is required to assess this
dependence. Many of these services are not directly important to the continued
function of these anthropogenic assets, but the activities associated with these
assets may be impacting services. The indirect links between these services and
assets should be further explored and,

• There are weak links between supporting and regulating services and geological
assets but this requires additional data to fully assess this relationship.

3.5.3 Linkages between Services and Goods

There are a lesser number of strong linkages between ecosystem services and goods
than there are between assets and services that reflects the inter-dependence between
ecosystem services and natural assets. The following generalized comments can be
made regarding the linkages between ecosystem services and goods:

Strong Linkages

A strong linkage is one where there is a high dependence between the service and the
production of goods, or that the service is important for the ongoing production or
maintenance of the good.

• There are strong links between regulating services and the primary sector of
industry in that goods such as agricultural crops, livestock and timber production
depend significantly on regulating services such as climate, disturbance and
water regulation to create a stable regime for production of goods;

• There are strong links between regulating services and cultural and aesthetic
goods reflecting their interdependence on gas, climate, disturbance and water
regulation;

• There are strong links between supporting services and the primary sector of
industry as goods, such as the production of agricultural crops, that depend upon
fertile soil and provision of nutrients, pollination and primary production;

• There are strong links between supporting services and cultural and aesthetic
goods, largely due to the importance of maintaining future options;

• There are strong links between provisioning services and the primary and
secondary sector of industry as a result of the dependence on water supply and
the provision of food production and raw materials as inputs to both processes;

• There are strong links between cultural services and the tertiary sector of
industry relating to linkage with the transportation (travel), trade and tourist
services; and,

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 36

• Finally there are strong links between cultural services and cultural and aesthetic
goods.

Moderate Linkages

A moderate linkage is one where there is a lesser dependence between the service and
the production of goods, or the service is of lesser importance for the ongoing production
or maintenance of the good.

• There are moderate links between regulating services and the secondary sector
of industry, largely resulting from the strong dependence of this sector on primary
goods;

• There are moderate links between supporting services and the secondary sector.
This reflects the indirect importance of services like nutrient cycling on industries
like agricultural processing; and,

• There are moderate links between provisioning services and the tertiary sector of
industry, and with cultural and aesthetic goods. This reflects the dependence on
some provisioning services (water supply, food production) but a lesser
dependence on others (raw materials).

Weak Linkages

A weak linkage is one where there is a minimal dependence between the service and
the production of goods, or the service is of little importance for the ongoing production
or maintenance of the good.

• There are weak links between regulating and supporting services and the tertiary
sector of industry. Many services in the tertiary sector are not directly dependent
upon regulating and supporting services;

• There are weak links between cultural services and the primary and secondary
sector of industry as many of the goods produced by these sectors are not
dependent upon cultural services; and,

• There are weak links between supporting services and the tertiary sector.
Industries in the tertiary sector depend on the regulating services only in an
indirect way. The potential for attributing a higher strength to these links should
be further investigated, considering the interdependence of services. For
example, tertiary industry is only weakly dependent on regulating and supporting
services, but moderately dependent on provisioning services. At the same time,
provisioning services have a strong relationship to regulating and supporting
services (Table 3-2). This may imply a stronger link between
regulating/supporting services and the tertiary sector than shown.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 37

4.0 Role of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Southern
Alberta

This section discusses the outputs of spreadsheet analyses that were completed to answer the
research questions behind the EGS Assessment for southern Alberta. Each section provides a
background to the analysis, discussion of relevant methods and brief discussion of key findings.

4.1 Ecosystem Services Important to the Maintenance of Assets

4.1.1 Analytical Background
Purpose

The table in Appendix 9-3 was constructed to analyze the contribution of each ecosystem
service to the maintenance of assets in southern Alberta and the results are summarized in
Table 4-1. This analysis directly addresses the research question: expiain and summarize how
the ecosystem services support the maintenance of each asset (both natural and
anthropogenic). The results are also used to create column C of Appendices 9-7 to 9-26 in the
assessment of the importance of ecosystem services.

Methods

As discussed previously in Section 2.2.3, the importance of an ecosystem service to maintaining
a natural asset was assigned a high, moderate or low value, based on professional opinion of
the project team. A value of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to represent low, moderate or high
importance of the service to the maintenance of natural and anthropogenic assets. A service
(row) was ranked as low if it did not contribute or contributed very little to the maintenance of an
asset (column). The service was ranked as moderate if it contributed to a moderate degree to
the maintenance of an asset. Finally, it was ranked as high if it was very important to the
maintenance of an asset. The ranks low/med/high represent values of 1 ,2, or 3 respectively for
the purpose of summing rows (see below).

For the purposes of this analysis, the maintenance of an asset could include: 1) prevention of
damage to an asset - for example, gas regulation acting in the prevention of damage to plants
by ozone filtering UV radiation; 2) enhancement of asset function - for example, water
regulation acting to deliver water to forests and crops; 3) existence value of a service; and,
4) protection of an asset through inherent valuation - for example, aesthetic, spiritual,
education, and recreational services ail tend to infer a high value on the assets on which they
take place. It is assumed that people will tend to protect the areas that they value for aesthetic,
spiritual, education, and recreational purposes.

After each asset was ranked with respect to a service, the entire row was summed -
representing the overall rank for the service. This ranking was calculated using the 33rd and
67th percentiles for all rows. For example, if a service scored below the 33rd percentile, it was
assigned low; if it scored above the 33rd but below the 67th percentile, it was assigned moderate,
and if it scored above the 67th percentile it was rated as high.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 38

4.1.2 Findings

All of the highest ranked services, except one, came from the category of regulating services.
The regulating services are the large-scale benefits of life support functions obtained from the
regulation of ecosystem processes such as gas, climate and water regulation, erosion control
and sediment retention, waste treatment and biological control. These services are, by
definition, important to the maintenance of assets (and in some cases to the maintenance of
other services). The one high-ranking service not from the category of regulating was from
provisioning services (water supply). This exception is not surprising in a semi-arid landscape.

Table 4-1 presents a summary of those ecosystem services considered to be of high or
moderate importance to the maintenance of assets, followed by a discussion of potential
reasons for these importance values.

Table 4-1: Summary of Ecosystem Services Considered Important
to the Maintenance of Assets

Service Group

Service

Highly Important

Regulating Services

Climate regulation

Disturbance regulation

Erosion control and sediment retention
Waste treatment

Biological control

Provisioning Services

Water supply

Moderately Important

Supporting Services

Soil formation

Primary production

Cultural and Aesthetic

Services

Aesthetic

Science and education

Ecosystem Services Highly Important to the Maintenance of Assets

The ecosystem services that were considered to be most important in the maintenance of
assets were the regulating services of climate regulation, disturbance regulation, erosion
control, waste treatment, and biological control and the provisioning service of water supply.
Three of these services (climate regulation, disturbance regulation, and biological control) were
also the most important with respect to the production of goods (see Section 4.2). In many
cases there is an overlap in the importance to maintaining an asset and producing goods,
because by maintaining an asset, that asset is in turn better positioned to provide goods.

The regulating services that protect assets from damage (climate regulation, disturbance
regulation, erosion control, waste treatment, and biological control) typically all had the same
(high) ranking of importance against each asset. For example, all services were of high

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 39

importance to most biotic assets that involve primary production. Primary production was in
turn, of high importance to the production of goods (Section 4.2).

Water supply was considered to be of high importance to the maintenance of assets. The
maintenance function provided by water supply is primarily the protection and enhancement of
assets via the storage and retention of water. It was not easy to separate which assets
benefited from the regulating service of water regulation compared to those that benefited from
the provisioning service of water supply. It is possible that some function of the regulating
service was attributed to the supply service, as the two are hard to separate.

Ecosystem Services Moderately Important to the Maintenance of Assets

The supporting services of soil formation and primary production and the cultural services of
aesthetic and science/education value were considered to be moderately important to the
maintenance of assets.

Soil formation was seen to maintain any biotic asset dependent on soil, as well as human
settlements, due to their dependence on soil for lawns, gardens, trees, and ornamental plants.
Primary production was deemed as an inherent function in the production of all biotic assets.

Aesthetic and science/education were seen overall as of moderate importance to the
maintenance of assets. This is because they tend to infer a high value on the assets in which
they take place. It is assumed that people will tend to protect the areas that they value for
aesthetic and scientific/education purposes.

4.2 Ecosystem Services and the Production of Goods

4.2.1 Analytical Background
Purpose

Appendix 9-4 was constructed to analyze the cumulative contribution of each ecosystem service
to the production of various goods in southern Alberta. This analysis directly addresses the
research question: explain and summarize how the ecosystem services support input to
production of the relevant goods. The results are also used to feed a series of 20 intermediate
tables analyzing the value of services to the production of goods (organized by asset), which is
used for column B in the importance of services tables (Appendices 9-7 to 9-26).

Methods

A value of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to represent low, moderate, or high importance of the service
to the production of goods. A service (row) was ranked as low if it did not contribute or
contributed very little towards the production of a good (column). The service was ranked as
moderate if it contributed to a moderate degree to the production of a good. Finally, it was
ranked as high if it was very important to the production of a good. The ranks low/med/high
represent values of 1 , 2, or 3 respectively for the purpose of summing rows (see below).

When assessing the contribution of a service to the production of a good, only goods that were
directly related to the service were considered (e.g. climate regulation might directly impact
agricultural crops via severe storms). Indirect relationships such as the importance of food
production to the oil and gas industry (via food for the workers) was not considered. This

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 40

approach was taken because of the interconnected nature of ecosystem services, goods, and
assets. If indirect relationships were considered, it seems likely that all services would be
ranked the same and therefore very high.

A potential risk resulting from this approach is that the products produced by some lower ranked
services (e.g. soil formation) may be inputs to some of the most important services (e.g. primary
production). It is important when assessing the results of this study to consider all ecosystem
services are interrelated. Compromising one of the (seemingly) less important services may
result in indirect damages to some of the most important ecosystem services.

After each good was ranked with respect to a service, the entire row was summed -
representing the overall rank for the service. This ranking was calculated using the 33rd and
67th percentiles for all rows. For example, if a service scored below the 33rd percentile, it was
assigned low; if it scored above the 33rd but below the 67th percentile, it was assigned moderate,
and if it scored above the 67th percentile it was rated as high.

4.2.2 Findings

The services that were determined to be the most important for the production of goods in
southern Alberta include most of the regulating services (climate regulation, disturbance
regulation, water regulation, biological control), one supporting service (primary production), and
two provisioning services (water supply, and raw materials). Regulating services are importance
for maintaining stable conditions necessary for the continued production of key goods.

Most of the highest ranked services can be linked directly to the task of supporting or regulating
primary production. Most of the goods considered in this assessment have a high direct or
indirect dependence on primary production (e.g. agriculture, forestry, subsistence, biodiversity).
The provisioning service of raw materials is one highly important service that does not
necessarily relate to primary production. This service was considered important due to the
dependence on fuel for the production of many goods.

Future options received a high ranking in regard to all ecosystem services. It is not clear which
services could be compromised (if any) without risking the loss of future options towards the
production of goods provided by other services.

The value of all goods was considered equal in this initial analysis. Adding an economic
coefficient of the value of production should also be considered in any future analysis of the
importance of ecosystem services to southern Alberta.

Table 4-2 presents a summary of those ecosystem services considered to be of high or
moderate importance to the production of goods, followed by a discussion of potential reasons
for these importance values.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 41

Table 4-2: Summary of Ecosystem Services Considered Important
to the Production of Goods

Service Group

Service

Highly Important

Regulating Services

Climate regulation

Disturbance regulation

Water regulation

Biological control

Supporting Services

Primary production

Provisioning Services

Water supply

Raw materials

Moderately Important

Regulating Services

Gas regulation

Erosion control and sediment retention I

Waste treatment

Provisioning Services

Genetic resources

Cultural and Aesthetic Services

Recreation

Ecosystem Services Highly Important to the Production of Goods

Primary production was considered to be of high importance to the production of a very large
number of goods produced in southern Alberta (e.g. agriculture, forestry, subsistence,
agricultural processing, construction, biodiversity, and aesthetics).

Water supply and raw materials were also ranked high with respect to their importance to the
production of goods; water supply was ranked as the most important service overall. It is
important in the production of all biotic goods (e.g. agriculture, forestry, subsistence, and
biodiversity) and for other goods that may inherently require water (e.g. utilities, tourist services,
aesthetic, culture, and recreation). Raw materials was deemed highly important primarily due to
the importance of fuel to the production of goods, mainly driven by southern Alberta industries
(agriculture, oil and gas, forestry, mining, oil and gas refining, other manufacturing, construction,
transportation, and trade).

The regulating services that were deemed most important to the production of a large number of
goods were, in most cases, directly responsible for protecting the function of primary production.
For instance: the function of disturbance regulation in protecting crops and forests from extreme
weather events, the function of climate regulation in stabilizing the earth’s temperature and
protecting biodiversity, and the function of water regulation in providing a stable and reliable
source of water for agriculture and biota in southern Alberta. The regulating service of biological
control was also considered important to the production of agricultural goods.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 42

Ecosystem Services Moderately Important to the Production of Goods

It is important to note that several regulating services that received moderate rankings (erosion
control, waste treatment, soil formation, nutrient cycling, pollination) are directly responsible for
supporting services that are highly ranked (mainly primary production). This underscores the
importance of the interrelationships between ecosystem services.

Genetic resources received an overall moderate ranking due to its high importance in relation to
agriculture-crop and agriculture-livestock and future options. Recreation also received a
moderate ranking largely as a result of the importance of this service to the production of a
number of goods in southern Alberta.

4.3 Impact of the Expansion of Anthropogenic Assets on Ecosystem

Services

Purpose

The relationship between ecosystem services and the associated goods they provide is
described in previous sections. Changes to the amount of natural assets present on the
landscape may affect the relative abundance of a range of ecosystem services that in turn
provide important and highly valued societal goods. The following analysis addresses the
research question; explain and summarize the relative impact of expanding anthropogenic
assets on the capacity of the natural assets to continue to provide ecosystem services , and the
capacity of the natural assets to continue to produce the goods.

Methods

in order to demonstrate both the importance of the relationships and to illustrate potential
impacts of changes to natural assets, two scenarios of future regional change are presented
and compared to the existing conditions. Neither scenario is meant to be realistic but, rather,
has been constructed to demonstrate relationships and potential impacts. The first scenario
(the Agro-industrial Scenario) increases the amount of industrial activities and arable
agriculture, while the second (the Naturalized Scenario) converts anthropogenic cover types into
natural cover types through restoration (Figure 4-1).

The following charts indicate the percentage of the region that each asset type occupies under
the different scenarios described below.

Under the Agro-industrial Scenario there is a decrease in native prairie assets, forest assets,
tame pasture, lotic water and lentic water and a corresponding increase in cereal, oilseeds and
legumes, specialty crops, forage crops and other anthropogenic assets.

In the Naturalized Scenario there are decreases in agricultural assets, roads and rails,
rural/agricultural residential, cities, well sites, pipelines, feedlots, recreation sites, industrial sites,
canals and increases in native prairie and forest assets. The changes to projected services and
goods are analysed in following sections. Methodological approaches are also presented.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

% Area of Southern Alberta

Page 43

Figure 4-1 : Assets as a Percentage of Southern Alberta

■ Percent of total area (Existing) ■ Percent of total area (Agro-Industrial Scenario) ■ Percent of total area (Naturalized Scenario)

^ f J- J?

^ 4 / / J °

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 44

4.3.1 Capacity of Assets to Provide Services

As the concept of ecosystem services has not been widely publicized, the understanding of the
importance of the services provided by assets is not clearly understood by the general public.
Appropriate mechanisms need to be in place for both valuing these services and providing
incentives to ensure their maintenance (see Section 5). The first step is to conceptualize the
potential impacts on services of converting from natural to anthropogenic assets.

Expansion of anthropogenic assets at the expense of natural assets may change the quantity,
quality and type of ecosystem services provided by southern Alberta.

An index of service provision was developed and evaluated according to the existing
composition of assets in the region and for the two opposing scenarios (Agro-industrialization
and Naturalization). The index was developed as follows:

(Ai xSa1)+(A2 x SA2 ) + ... + (Ajg xSA35)

Provision of Service 1 in Southern Alberta = 200

Where,

= % Asset x in southern Alberta

c _

ax Importance of Asset x to providing Service 1

The importance of each asset to providing the service is ranked on a relative scale of -2 to +2,
depending on whether the asset depletes the service, has no effect on the service, or provides
the service (Appendix 9-5: Importance of Assets to the Provision of Services). For example,
mixed grass is highly important (+2) to providing soil formation while cereal crops are
moderately detrimental (-1) and cities and towns are highly detrimental (-2) to soil formation.
Thus a region composed of 50% mixed grass, 40% cereal crops and 10% urban would have a
value in the numerator of 50*2 + 40*(-1 ) + 1 0*(-2) = 40.

The value of the denominator (200) is the maximum theoretical value for provision of Service 1
in southern Alberta given a landscape in which 100% of the land base is ranked highly important
(+2) to providing the service. The reverse is also possible, where 100% of the land base is
ranked highly detrimental (-2) to the provision of the service. This case would be designated by
a negative numerator. Dividing the total numerator by 200 normalizes the index to a relative
ranking of -1 to +1. Thus, in the mixed grass/cereal crop/city example, the index of provision of
soil formation in the region is given a value of 40/200 = 0.2.

The index can therefore be considered a type of area-weighted importance index for the
provision of ecosystem services across southern Alberta. The results of applying this index to
the 20 identified ecosystem services under existing conditions and two alternative scenarios are
shown in Figure 4-2.

The current state of ecosystem services in southern Alberta is moderate, with the highest index
values occurring for the services primary production, food production, and science and
education. Currently there are low values for habitat/refugia, genetic resources and spiritual

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 45

and traditional use. According to this method of analysis, the latter two services are actually in
slight decline under the current land use/land cover composition in southern Alberta. In other
words there are more negative effects on genetic resources and spiritual / traditional uses than
positive.

In the Agro-industrial Scenario (Enhanced Agriculture and Anthropogenic), in which
anthropogenic assets are increased at the expense of natural assets, the index of service
provision in southern Alberta decreases to varying degrees for all ecosystem services. The
greatest decreases are seen for the services biological control, habitat/refugia, genetic
resources and spiritual and traditional use. Habitat/refugia also becomes a net loss under this
scenario. The services primary production, food production, raw materials and recreation show
the smallest decreases compared to the other ecosystem services, since these services can be
provided to some extent by anthropogenic assets. For example, primary production and food
production can both be provided by agricultural land, which expands under this scenario along
with the expansion of urban and residential areas. Decreasing the percentage of native
grasslands on the landscape has the greatest impact on many of the ecosystem services in the
Agro-industrial Scenario. All services, except for raw materials provision, are strongly
decreased by the decrease in this set of natural assets. The expansion of cities and towns onto
native prairie assets appears to have the greatest influence on the decrease in ecosystem
services.

Similarly, the greatest increases in ecosystem services under the Naturalized Scenario can be
attributed to the increase in native prairie assets through conversion of arable agricultural lands
back to a natural state. Increasing the proportion of native assets on the landscape causes the
services of biological control, habitat/refugia, genetic resources and spiritual and traditional use
to show the highest corresponding increases in service provision. The smallest increases are
shown with respect to waste treatment and raw materials; two services, primary production and
food production actually show a slight decrease under this scenario. This effect can be
attributed to the large-scale conversion of arable agriculture, forage and tame pasture back into
native prairie assets.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Figure 4-2: Index of Services Provided by Assets

1

00 CD 'vT CM O

dddci

\

%

%[

s

%

\
> <

N

\

s

%

\

/o„

C/>

Q)

o

E

a>

(/)

%

o o o

I 1

uoisiAOJd eoiAjes jo xopu|

Alberta Environment Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 47

Looking at the individual ecosystem services and how they change in the two opposite
scenarios reveals the following:

Gas regulation is provided by all grassland assets, due to their ability to regulate carbon
dioxide fluxes between the atmosphere and soil. Forests, while less abundant in southern
Alberta, are also highly important in providing gas regulation through their large quantity of
biomass. Gas regulation is most negatively impacted by cities and towns, well sites, feedlots,
mines and pits, and industrial sites, and is only slightly less impacted by arable agriculture
assets that disturb the soil and release stored carbon to the atmosphere. However, arable
agriculture covers a much greater proportion of southern Alberta which increases the relative
impact of expanding agriculture on this ecosystem service in the Agro-industrial Scenario. In
the Naturalized Scenario, conversion of cereal crops into native grasslands is the largest driver
behind the increase in gas regulation;

Climate regulation is similar to gas regulation in that it is provided primarily by native
grasslands and forests, and to a lesser degree by lentic water, wetlands and reservoirs.
Conversion of native grassland to urban areas strongly decreases climate regulation in the
Agro-industrial Scenario. In the Naturalized Scenario, the greatest increase in climate
regulation comes from the restoration of grassland assets from cereal crops;

Disturbance regulation is provided mainly by native prairie assets including prairie treed and
cottonwood complexes; forest shrubs; and mixedwood and hardwood forests. Canals are an
anthropogenic asset that is also highly important to providing disturbance regulation. Prairie
disturbance regulation is provided to a lesser extent by natural aquatic assets. In the Agro¬
industrial Scenario, disturbance regulation is decreased by the expansion of urban areas onto
native prairie, which is compensated only very little by the small increase in canals. Disturbance
regulation is improved in the Naturalized Scenario by decreasing cereal crops on native prairie;

Water regulation is provided primarily by native prairie assets including cottonwood complexes;
forests; aquatic assets; and also by the anthropogenic assets reservoirs and canals. Cities and
towns, mines and pits, and industrial sites have the greatest relative negative impact on water
regulation in the landscape. In the Agro-industrial Scenario, water regulation is decreased
mainly by the expansion of urban areas onto native prairie assets. In the Naturalized Scenario,
an increase in native prairie relative to arable cropland increases the provision of water
regulation;

Erosion control and sediment retention is highly impacted by roads and rails, cities, mines
and pits, and industrial sites, while agricultural assets deplete the service to a lesser degree.
Erosion control and sediment retention decreased to the greatest extent in the Agro-industrial
Scenario by the expansion of cities onto native prairie. Agricultural assets converted to native
prairie assets in the Naturalized Scenario increases the provision of erosion control as a service
in the landscape;

Waste treatment is negatively impacted by the expansion of cities onto native prairie in the
Agro-industrial Scenario. In the Naturalized Scenario, waste treatment shows one of the
smallest relative increases compared with the other ecosystem services with the restoration of
native prairie;

Biological control shows one of the greatest decreases with the expansion of anthropogenic
assets (particularly cities and towns) in the Agro-industrial Scenario as well as one of the
greatest increases in service provision with the restoration of native assets (particularly native
grasslands);

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 48

Soil formation is most negatively impacted by the expansion of cities and towns onto native
prairie in the Agro-industrial Scenario, and most positively affected by the restoration of native
prairie compared to existing conditions in the Naturalized Scenario;

Primary production has one of the highest index values of all services currently provided in
southern Alberta. Expanding anthropogenic assets in the Agro-industrial Scenario causes only
a small decrease in primary production. The loss of primary production, due mainly to the
increase in urban areas, is offset by an increase in agricultural land which provides primary
production. Anthropogenic assets that can slightly increase primary production include
reservoirs and canals. Restoring natural assets in the Naturalized Scenario also causes a small
decrease in primary production, resulting from the decrease in arable agriculture, forage crops,
tame pasture and canals;

Nutrient cycling is most impacted by the expansion of cities and towns onto native prairie in
the Agro-industrial Scenario, while the conversion of arable agriculture to native prairie in the
Naturalized Scenario increases nutrient cycling in the region. Forage crops and tame pasture,
as anthropogenic assets, do provide a moderate amount of nutrient cycling;

Pollination is negatively impacted by the expansion of cities and towns onto native prairie in the
Agro-industrial Scenario, while the conversion of arable agriculture to native prairie in the
Naturalized Scenario increases pollination services in the region. Again, forage crops and tame
pasture provide a moderate amount of nutrient cycling;

Habitat/Refugia is currently one of the least provided services in southern Alberta according to
the index. This service is also one of the most sensitive to expansion of anthropogenic assets
or restoration of natural assets. Expansion of urban areas and cropland into native prairie
strongly decreases habitat/refugia in the region, while the conversion of arable agriculture back
to native prairie strongly increases the service. Tame pasture has a moderate effect on the
service compared with arable agricultural assets;

Water supply is negatively affected by the expansion of cities and towns in the Agro-industrial
Scenario, especially on native prairie. Creation of reservoirs has a slight positive effect on water
supply, but this does not counteract the negative impacts because the area of reservoirs is still
relatively small. In the Naturalized Scenario, restoration of native prairie and conversion of
cereal crops increases water supply as an ecosystem service;

Food production is currently relatively high in southern Alberta compared with other ecosystem
services. In the Agro-industrial Scenario, the decrease in this service is relatively small due to
the expansion of agricultural assets and feedlots as well as urban assets. In the Naturalized
Scenario, there is also a small decrease in food production associated with the decrease in
agriculture and conversion to native prairie;

Raw materials provision shows one of the smallest relative decreases with the expansion of
anthropogenic assets in the Agro-industrial Scenario, because of the capacity of several
anthropogenic assets to provide raw materials (e.g., well sites, pipelines, mines, industrial sites).
The decrease in forest assets such as hardwood and spruce/fir forest due to road and town
expansion most strongly impacts the provision of this service. Conversely, the restoration of
hardwood forests in the Naturalized Scenario increases the provision of raw materials, but to a
small degree overall due the associated decrease in well sites, pipelines and industrial sites;

Genetic resources provision is currently given a negative index value in southern Alberta,
indicating that genetic resources are actually decreasing under current land cover/land use
composition. This service is also one of the most sensitive to expansion of anthropogenic
assets or restoration of natural assets. Expansion of urban areas and cropland into native

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 49

prairie strongly decreases genetic resources in the region, while the conversion of arable
agriculture and forage crops back to native prairie strongly increases the service;

Aesthetic services are considered to be negatively affected by the decrease in native prairie in
the Agro-industrial Scenario, although the creation of recreation areas, reservoirs and canals
has a slightly positive counter-balancing effect. In the Naturalized Scenario, restoration of
native prairie increases aesthetics as an ecosystem service;

Spiritual and traditional use is currently given a negative index value in southern Alberta,
indicating that spiritual and traditional uses are actually decreasing under current land
cover/land use composition. This service is also one of the most sensitive to expansion of
anthropogenic assets or restoration of natural assets. Expansion of anthropogenic assets into
native prairie strongly decreases spiritual and traditional resources in the region, while the
conversion of arable agriculture back to native prairie strongly increases the service;

Science and education is currently relatively high in southern Alberta compared with other
ecosystem services, because of the ability of this service to be provided by a variety of assets.
In the Agro-industrial Scenario, the decrease in science and education is due primarily to the
expansion of cities and towns onto native prairie; expansion of cropland and recreational areas
give very slight increases in science and education. In the Naturalized Scenario, there is an
increase in science and education services associated with the increase in native prairie assets.
However, the decrease in the service due to the decrease in area of cities and recreational sites
lowers the magnitude of the service increase; and,

Recreation experiences one of the smallest relative decreases in service provision with respect
to the expansion of anthropogenic assets in the Agro-industrial Scenario. Here, the decrease in
the service associated with the decrease in native prairie and forest assets is lessened by the
slightly positive changes associated with increasing roads and rails, recreation areas, reservoirs
and canals. Restoring natural assets in the Naturalized Scenario causes a slight increase in
recreation services, resulting from the decrease in arable agriculture and increase in native
prairie assets.

4.3.2 Capacity of Assets and Services to Provide Goods

The second part of the research question regarding the impacts of expansion of anthropogenic
assets deals with the capacity of the assets and services to provide goods. This part of the
question was assessed through two complementary analyses: one that looked at the direct
effect of expanding anthropogenic assets on natural assets and the goods provided by those
assets; and one that examined the effect that the change in assets would have on the
ecosystem services required for sustained production of those goods.

Capacity of Assets to Directly Produce Goods

The first analysis, the direct production of goods from assets, was assessed using a similar
index to that developed in Section 4.3.1. The direct production analysis assumes the
contribution of all inputs including ecosystem services as well as external inputs such as
fertilizer, fuel, etc.

An index of good production was developed and evaluated according to the existing
composition of assets in the region and for the two opposing Scenarios (Agro-Industrial
expansion and Naturalization). The index was developed as follows:

(A, xGa1)+(A2 x GA2)+ • • • + (^35 XGA35)
Production of Good 1 in Southern Alberta = 300

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 50

Where,

= % Asset x in Southern Alberta
^ax = Importance of Asset x to providing Good 1

The importance of each asset to providing the good is ranked on a relative scale of 0 to 3,
where 3 is highly important, 2 is moderately important, 1 is low importance, and 0 means that
the good is not produced by that asset (Appendix 9-6: Importance of the Asset to the Production
of Goods). Using the example of mixed grass, cereal crops and urban areas once more, it can
be seen that mixed grass and cities and towns have no importance (0) to crop/vegetable
production, while cereal crops are highly important (3) to producing crop/vegetable goods. The
hypothetical region with 50% mixed grass, 40% cereal crops and 10% cities and towns would
have a value in the numerator of 50*0 + 40*3 + 10*0 = 120.

The value of the denominator (300) is the maximum theoretical value for production of a good in
southern Alberta, given a landscape in which 100% of the land base is ranked highly important
(3) to providing the good. Dividing the total numerator by 300 normalizes the index to a relative
ranking of 0 to 1. Thus, the mixed grass/cereal crop/city example gets an index value of
120/300 = 0.4 for the production of crop/vegetables.

Similar to the index of service provision, the index of good production can therefore be
considered a type of area-weighted importance index for the production of goods by the land
base across southern Alberta. The results of applying this index to the 21 identified goods
under existing conditions and for the two scenarios are shown in Figure 4-3.

An artefact that is immediately apparent from looking at Figure 4-3 is the very small index
values associated with most of the secondary and tertiary sector goods. This is a result of the
fact that provision of these goods is not directly dependent on most assets. The opposite is true
for the goods in the primary sector and the non-market goods (biodiversity, aesthetic, cultural,
future options, non-market recreational opportunities). In addition, the index is area-weighted
and does not reflect the per hectare importance value (see note below).

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Figure 4-3: Index of Goods Directly Provided by Assets in Southern Alberta

in

0

O)

03

Q_

uojpnpojd poo6 jo xepu|

Alberta Environment Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 52

NOTE: The calculation of the index of goods directly produced by assets does not include an
importance coefficient that would adjust the area weighted calculation for the importance to
society of that good. The coefficient may be calculated based on economic importance and/or
societal importance as developed through consultation for non-market goods.

An example of how the importance coefficient would fit into the equation is:

Provision of Good 1 in southern Alberta =

(A, x Gai x IA1G1 ) + (A 2 xGA2 x IA2G) )+... + (A3s x GA35 x IA35G1 )

300

Where,

= % Asset x in southern Alberta
^ax = importance of Asset x to providing Good 1

^ axgi ~ Societal/economic importance coefficient for rating the importance of Good 1 produced
by Asset x (between 0 and 1 )

This coefficient is required for future planning efforts in order to allow for direct comparison and
trade-offs between goods produced but is beyond the scope of the current work.

The production of oil and gas, mining, and subsistence show high index values in Figure 4-3,
because they can occur across much of the existing land base irrespective of the asset itself.
Similarly, agriculture has a higher value than forestry because agricultural land takes up a much
larger proportion of southern Alberta than forest assets. Agricultural processing is also high due
to the immediate connection to the agricultural land base. Wholesale and retail trade, as the
link between the primary sector goods and the secondary sector, depends on the goods
produced by the land base and is also relatively high.

In the Agro-industrial Scenario, in which anthropogenic assets are increased, there is a
corresponding increase for production of several of the goods, including: crop/vegetable
agriculture; agricultural processing; oil and gas refining; other manufacturing; construction;
transportation and utilities; trade; health and education; government and non-profit; and other
services. Goods that decrease as anthropogenic assets expand include: livestock agriculture;
oil and gas; forestry; mining; subsistence; tourist services; biodiversity; aesthetic goods; cultural
goods; future options; and non-market recreation.

Capacity of Ecosystem Services to Produce Goods

For the second analysis, the potential for the production of goods to be produced through
ecosystem services, a third index was developed based on the ecosystem services provided by
southern Alberta (as determined by the index of service provision - see Section 4.3.1) and the
importance of those services to producing goods (as determined in Appendix 9-4: Importance of
the Service to the Production of Goods). This index of ability of ecosystem services to provide
goods was developed and evaluated according to the existing land use/land cover composition
of the region and for the two opposing scenarios.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 53

The index was developed as follows:

Ability of Ecosystem Services to Produce Good 1 in southern Alberta =

fa xGsi)+(S2 xGs2) + --- + (S2q xGs2o)

60

Where,

S =

* Provision of Service x in southern Alberta (from index of service provision - 4.3.1 )

P _

sx “ Importance of Service x to producing Good 1

Provision of each service in southern Alberta is taken directly from the result of calculating the
index of service provision in Section 4.3.1 . For instance, provision of soil formation in the mixed
grass/cereal crop/city example was calculated to be 0.2 (see Section 4.3.1). A second service,
habitat/refugia has a service provision index value of 0, while a third service, pollination, has a
service provision index value of 0.2.

The importance of each service to providing Good 1 is ranked on a relative scale of 1 to 3,
where 3 is highly important, 2 is moderately important and 1 is of low to no importance (see
Table 4-3 “Importance of the Service to the Production of Goods”). Soil formation, for example,
has a high importance (3) to providing crop/vegetable agriculture, while habitat/refugia has low
importance (1) and pollination has a high importance (3). The value of the numerator for the
mixed grass/cereal crop/city example thus becomes 0.2(3)soil formation + 0(1)habitat/refugia +
0.2(3)pollination = 1 .2

The value of the denominator (60) is the maximum theoretical value for the ability of ecosystem
services to produce Good 1 in southern Alberta, if the index of provision for each of the 20
services was 1 and each service was ranked highly important (3) to production of the good.
Dividing the total numerator by 60 normalizes the index to a relative ranking of 0 to 1 . While this
is the theoretical maximum, it should be noted that achieving a value of 1 for any given good will
be unattainable for all practical purposes, since the probability of arriving at a landscape
composition where all 20 ecosystem services are provided to their maximum extent is extremely
unlikely. In the mixed grass/cereal crop/city example, the index of the ability of ecosystem
services to provide goods becomes 1.2/60 = 0.02.

The results of applying this index to the 21 identified goods are shown in Figure 4-4.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Figure 4-4: Index of Long-Term Ability of Ecosystem Services to Produce Goods

r

)

j >

3

spooB epjAOJd

o\ seojAjes tuajsAsooe jo Amiqe jo xepu|

Alberta Environment Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 55

Figure 4-4 indicates the degree to which services required for production of goods are
provided by ecosystems in the region. For example, services of high importance to the
production of crop/vegetable agriculture include gas regulation; climate regulation;
disturbance regulation; water regulation; erosion control and sediment retention; waste
treatment; biological control; soil formation; primary production; nutrient cycling;
pollination; water supply; food production; raw materials; and genetic resources
(Appendix 9-4: Importance of the Service to the Production of Goods). Each of these
services is provided to a different extent in southern Alberta, under current conditions
and under the Agro-Industrial and Naturalized Scenarios (Figure 4-2), contributing to the
ability in southern Alberta to sustain production of crop/vegetable agriculture over the
long term. Any services not provided by ecosystems (e.g., nutrient cycling) must be
subsidized through artificial services (e.g., added fertilizer).

Impacts on Goods in Southern Alberta

The sustained production of goods in southern Alberta depends on both the capacity of
assets and services to produce goods. The impacts of expanding anthropogenic assets
in the Agro-industrial Scenario and restoring natural assets in the Naturalized Scenario
are explained further with respect to the 21 goods/sectors identified in southern Alberta:

Agriculture - Crop/Vegetable production depends highly on the area of arable
agriculture assets. Canals and rural/agricultural residential assets have a low importance
to crop/vegetable production. Crop/vegetable agriculture increases in the Agro-industrial
Scenario as agricultural assets expand over native prairie (Figure 4-3). However, the
ecosystem services ranked as highly important to crop/vegetable production (e.g., gas
regulation, nutrient cycling) are decreased under the Agro-industrial Scenario. The
ability of ecosystem services to produce this good shows one of the largest relative
decreases under the Agro-industrial Scenario (Figure 4-4). In the Naturalized Scenario,
the direct production of crop/vegetable agriculture from assets strongly decreases while
the potential for ecosystem services to provide this good increases. There is an inverse
relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good. This is in direct contrast to the index of goods
directly produced by assets (including external inputs) calculated previously, which
showed an increase in agricultural goods as agriculture increases. In other words, as
traditional arable agriculture increases in the area, it decreases the ecosystem services
(e.g., nutrient cycling, erosion control) that are fundamental to the long-term production
of agricultural goods. This is offset through external inputs such as fertilizer. The
sustainability of expansion of arable agriculture is therefore in question.

Agriculture - Livestock production is more widespread across different assets,
occurring on native prairie assets as well as tame pasture and feedlots. The index of
production of the good is therefore higher than that of crop/vegetable agriculture
because the area of assets important to producing livestock is greater. In the Agro¬
industrial Scenario, the production of livestock decreases slightly because of the
reductions in area of native prairie and expansion of arable agriculture and urban areas.
Livestock production increases highly in the Naturalized Scenario as a result of
increased native prairie assets. Livestock agriculture depends highly on ecosystem
services including gas regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, waste treatment,
biological control, primary production, water supply, food production and genetic
resources. The ability of these services to produce livestock agriculture decreases with
the expansion of anthropogenic assets in the Agro-industrial Scenario and increases

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 56

with the restoration of native prairie systems in the Naturalized Scenario. In both
scenarios, there is a direct relationship between the production of the good from the
asset and the ability of ecosystem services to provide the good.

Oil and gas as a primary sector good is widespread across most assets, and
differentiates little between assets as it can be found under almost any of the southern
Alberta assets. Oil and gas production decreases slightly in the Agro-industrial Scenario
with the expansion of cities, and increases slightly under the Naturalized Scenario. Oil
and gas production also has little dependence on most ecosystem services with the
exception of raw materials. Thus it shows the least decrease with respect to the ability
of ecosystem services to provide the good in the Agro-industrial Scenario. Under the
increase in ecosystem services provided by the Naturalized Scenario, it shows a slight
increase. In both scenarios, there is a direct relationship between the production of the
good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services to provide the good.

Forestry is highly dependent on forest assets for production, which represent a
relatively small proportion of southern Alberta. Forestry decreases in the Agro-industrial
Scenario with the expansion of urban areas, well sites and industrial sites, and increases
with the restoration of forest assets in the Naturalized Scenario. Forestry is highly
dependent on several ecosystem services including gas regulation, climate regulation,
disturbance regulation, water regulation, erosion control, biological control, soil
formation, primary production, nutrient cycling, water supply, raw materials and genetic
resources. The ability of these services to produce forestry as a good shows a
moderately high decrease under the Agro-industrial Scenario due to the conversion of
natural assets that provide these services, and a very high increase under the
Naturalized Scenario. In both scenarios, there is a direct relationship between the
production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services to provide
the good.

Mining is very similar to oil and gas as it is widespread across most assets. Mining
decreases slightly in the Agro-industrial Scenario with the expansion of cities into
potential mining areas, despite the increase of mines and pits as an asset because the
footprint of mines and pits is relatively very small. Mining, as a good, increases slightly
in the Naturalized Scenario with the restoration of natural assets that may be possible to
mine. Mining is highly dependent on erosion control and raw materials as ecosystem
services, which show a slight decrease under the Agro-industrial Scenario and a slight
increase under the Naturalized Scenario. In both scenarios, there is a direct relationship
between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services
to provide the good.

Subsistence depends on the area of natural assets such as native prairie and forest in
southern Alberta. In the Agro-industrial Scenario, subsistence shows a substantial
decrease in good production due to the expansion of cropland and urban areas; in the
Naturalized Scenario, subsistence increases with the restoration of natural assets. The
increase in ecosystem services in the Naturalized Scenario also greatly increases the
ability of these services to produce subsistence as a good. Subsistence is highly
dependent on many ecosystem services: gas, climate, disturbance and water regulation;
biological control; primary production; habitat/refugia; water supply; and spiritual and
traditional use. The ability of these services to produce subsistence decreases in the
Agro-industrial Scenario. There is a direct relationship between the production of the

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 57

good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services to provide the good in both
scenarios.

Agriculture processing is strongly dependent on agricultural assets in the landscape,
despite being a secondary sector good. Agriculture processing increases in the Agro¬
industrial Scenario with the increase in the proportion of cropland in southern Alberta,
and shows a large decrease in the Naturalized Scenario. Primary production is the only
ecosystem service upon which agriculture processing is highly dependent. The ability of
ecosystem services to support agriculture processing decreases in the Agro-industrial
Scenario and increases in the Naturalized Scenario. There is therefore an inverse
relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Oil and gas refining is produced by only a few assets (cities and towns, pipelines and
industrial sites) covering a very small proportion of the landscape, thus the index of good
production is very small. Oil and gas refining increases in the Agro-industrial Scenario
with the expansion of cities, pipelines and industrial sites, and decreases in conjunction
with the decrease of these assets in the Naturalized Scenario. Since raw materials is
the only ecosystem service upon which oil and gas refining is highly dependent, the
ability of ecosystem services to provide the good changes little in the Agro-industrial
Scenario (decrease) and the Naturalized Scenario (increase). In both scenarios, there is
an inverse relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability
of ecosystem services to provide the good.

Other manufacturing is also produced by few assets (forest assets, cities and towns,
pipelines, feedlots, mines and industrial sites). The footprint of these assets is relatively
small, thus the index of good production is very small. Expansion of cities and towns in
the Agro-industrial Scenario increases other manufacturing as a good. Other
manufacturing depends primarily on the services raw materials and genetic resources:
the ability of these ecosystem services to produce manufacturing decreases in the Agro¬
industrial Scenario and increases in the Naturalized Scenario. In both scenarios, there
is an inverse relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the
ability of ecosystem services to provide the good.

Construction is similar to other manufacturing: its area-weighted production on the
landscape is very small, as it is occurs on few assets making up a relatively small
proportion of southern Alberta (rural/agricultural residential, cities, well sites, pipelines,
feedlots, recreation sites, mines, industrial sites, reservoirs and canals). As these are all
anthropogenic assets, construction increases with expanding anthropogenic assets in
the Agro-industrial Scenario. Construction decreases in the Naturalized Scenario, with
the greatest change being effected through the decrease in urban area. Construction
depends highly on the ecosystem services primary production and raw materials. The
ability of these services to provide construction decreases very little in the Agro-industrial
Scenario and shows a small increase in the Naturalized Scenario. There is an inverse
relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Transportation and utilities is primarily dependent on anthropogenic assets with a
relatively small footprint, including roads/rails, rural/agricultural residential, cities, well
sites, pipelines, industrial sites and reservoirs. These assets increase in the Agro¬
industrial Scenario, which strongly increases transportation and utilities as a good.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 58

Transportation and utilities decrease in the Naturalized Scenario. This good depends
highly on water supply and raw materials as ecosystem services, which causes the
ability of these services to provide the good to decrease in the Agro-industrial Scenario
and increase in the Naturalized Scenario. In both scenarios, there is an inverse
relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Trade (wholesale/retail) is the link between the primary sector goods and the
secondary sector, and is thus dependent on many of the assets in southern Alberta.
This good shows the greatest increase with the increase in anthropogenic assets
(especially urban expansion) in the Agro-industrial Scenario and also shows a relatively
large decrease in the naturalized region of the Naturalized Scenario. Since the only
ecosystem service upon which trade depends highly is raw materials, the ability of
ecosystem services to provide trade decreases only slightly in the Agro-industrial
Scenario and increases only slightly in the Naturalized Scenario. There is a strong
inverse relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Health and education depends primarily on cities and towns as an asset, which occupy
a relatively small proportion of land. With the expansion of cities in the Agro-industrial
Scenario, health and education increases. It then decreases with the opposite situation
in the Naturalized Scenario. The ability of ecosystem services (primarily gas regulation,
waste treatment, biological control, primary production, science and education and
recreation) to provide health and education decreases in the Agro-industrial Scenario
and increases in the Naturalized Scenario. Again, there is an inverse relationship
between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services
to provide the good.

Tourist services are moderately to highly dependent on natural assets as well as
anthropogenic ones, including native prairie assets, forest assets and aquatic assets.
Thus, tourist services decrease with the expansion of anthropogenic assets in the Agro¬
industrial Scenario. Tourist services increase in the naturalized landscape of the
Naturalized Scenario despite the decrease in cities and towns, because of the relatively
larger area occupied by natural assets. Ecosystem services highly associated with
tourist services include: gas, climate, and disturbance regulation; biological control;
primary production; water supply; aesthetic services; spiritual and traditional use;
science and education; and recreation. The ability of these services to provide tourist
services as a good decreases as the proportion of anthropogenic assets increases. The
relationship is direct between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Government and non-profit depends primarily on cities and towns as an asset, similar
to health and education. With the expansion of cities in the Agro-industrial Scenario,
government and non-profit increases as a good. It then decreases with the opposite
situation in the Naturalized Scenario. The ability of ecosystem services (primarily gas
regulation, climate regulation, disturbance regulation, biological control and recreation)
to provide government and non-profit decreases in the Agro-industrial Scenario and
increases in the Naturalized Scenario. There is an inverse relationship between the
production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services to provide
the good.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 59

Other services are produced by cities and towns, so any increase in the proportion of
urban areas in southern Alberta will increase the production of this good. However, the
ability of ecosystem services to provide the good decreases with expansion of
anthropogenic assets onto natural assets. Thus there is an inverse relationship between
the production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services to
provide the good.

Biodiversity is a good that is highly dependent on natural assets in southern Alberta.
Thus, this good shows the largest decline of all the goods in the Agro-industrial Scenario
with the expansion of anthropogenic assets. Biodiversity also shows a large increase in
the Naturalized Scenario. Similarly, the ability of ecosystem services to provide
biodiversity decreases heavily in the Agro-industrial Scenario and increases
considerably in the Naturalized Scenario. Biodiversity is highly dependent on most
ecosystem services (gas, climate, disturbance, and water regulation; erosion control;
biological control; soil formation; primary production; nutrient cycling; pollination;
habitat/refugia; water supply; genetic resources; and science and education). There is a
direct relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Aesthetic goods, similar to biodiversity, tend to be tied to natural assets. Thus, as
anthropogenic assets such as cropland, mines and well sites expand onto natural
assets, the production of aesthetic goods decreases. Restoring native assets in the
Naturalized Scenario conversely increases the production of aesthetic goods. Aesthetics
are highly dependent on regulating services including gas, climate, disturbance and
water regulation as well as other ecosystem services including primary production,
pollination, water supply, aesthetic services, spiritual and traditional use, and recreation.
As the provision of these services decrease in the Agro-industrial Scenario, so does their
ability to provide aesthetic goods. The ability of ecosystem services to provide aesthetic
goods strongly increases in the Naturalized Scenario. There is a direct relationship
between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of ecosystem services
to provide the good.

Cultural goods are highly dependent on natural assets, but are also dependent on
anthropogenic assets such as cities and towns. There is therefore a smaller decrease
associated with the production of this good compared to biodiversity, for example, in the
Agro-industrial Scenario. Cultural goods increase with a restoration of native prairie in
the Naturalized Scenario. Cultural goods are highly dependent on ecosystem services
such as primary production, pollination, water supply, aesthetics, spiritual and traditional
use and recreation. The ability of ecosystem services to provide cultural goods
decreases in the Agro-industrial Scenario and increases in the Naturalized Scenario,
demonstrating a direct relationship between the production of the good from the asset
and the ability of ecosystem services to provide the good.

Future options have a high value of production in southern Alberta, as all assets can be
considered to produce some degree of future options. However, since natural assets
were usually given a higher importance ranking in terms of producing the good,
expanding anthropogenic assets decreases future options in the Agro-industrial
Scenario. Conversely, future options are increased in the Naturalized Scenario. Future
options are highly dependent on all ecosystem services. The ability of ecosystem
services to provide future options goods decreases strongly in the Agro-industrial
Scenario and increases highly in the Naturalized Scenario. There is a strong direct

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 60

relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the ability of
ecosystem services to provide the good.

Non-market recreational opportunities are highly dependent on all natural assets and
some anthropogenic assets such as cities and towns, recreational sites and reservoirs.
The small footprint of these compared with natural assets, however, causes non-market
recreational opportunities to decrease in the Agro-industrial Scenario. Along with
biodiversity, non-market recreation increases by the highest margin with the restoration
of native assets in the Naturalized Scenario. This good is highly dependent on several
ecosystem services: gas, climate, disturbance and water regulation; biological control;
primary production; water supply; aesthetics; spiritual and traditional use; and recreation.
The ability of ecosystem services to provide non-market recreational opportunities
decreases in the Agro-industrial Scenario and increases in the Naturalized Scenario.
There is a direct relationship between the production of the good from the asset and the
ability of ecosystem services to provide the good.

4.4 Asset Condition and EGS

Purpose

There is a direct, although not always linear, relationship between the condition of
natural assets and the type, quantity and quality of services they provide. The following
sections addresses the research question: explain and summarize the relationship
between the condition of the natural assets and the quantity and quality of services they
provide.

Methods

In the past, little analysis has been carried out related to asset condition over the entire
southern Alberta study area. Earlier work utilizing ALCES® provided a very broad
overview of the potential impact of the anthropogenic footprint in the region on
vegetation assets. However, this was essentially non-spatial and is only one measure of
asset condition. Additional analysis is required before it will be possible to quantitatively
assess landscape conditions (refer to Section 5, Gap Analysis) and the implications to
ecosystem goods and services. Therefore, only a qualitative analysis of how changes in
the condition of assets may affect ecosystem services is presented.

4.4.1 Asset Condition

Natural asset conditions may be described in terms of composition, connectivity and
configuration. All influence different ecosystem functions, processes and services at
varying scales. Accordingly, the appropriate scale for condition assessment is
dependent upon the process under investigation. In some cases, it is appropriate to
report condition metrics at the scale of the entire region, while in others, a finer scale
such as the natural region, sub region or other planning unit is more relevant. However,
even at the broad regional scale, spatially explicit analysis is required to properly
understand both the condition of assets and their influence on services.

Condition is not simply related to vigour and species composition but also to spatial
arrangements, even at the broadest of scales. The spatial condition of assets makes a
difference. The same amount of assets grouped together or scattered in small

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 61

fragmented patches provide different levels of service. At the regional scale, patch size,
connectivity and configuration have very important ecological implications. There are
“indispensable” (Forman, 1995) patterns of asset arrangement that provide ecosystem
services that cannot be replicated and need to be considered if the full range of
ecosystem services in the region is to be retained. These include:

• The maintenance of large (>10000 ha) patches of natural endemic vegetation;

• Broad well-vegetated riparian corridors;

• Landscape connectivity with corridors and stepping-stones across altered
landscapes; and,

• Outliers of natural vegetation scattered throughout highly disturbed landscapes.
The metrics of asset condition are discussed below in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Metrics of Asset Condition

Condition Component

Measurable Parameter

Asset Composition

Species Richness and Diversity

Amount and proportional representation of:

• Natural assets

• Anthropogenic assets

Natural Asset Connectivity

Patch Size

Contagion of natural assets

Linear disturbance density km/km2

Natural Asset Configuration

Boundaries and Edges

• Anthropogenic edge length and density km/km2

Patch arrangement

• Number of natural asset types within 1 km2 moving
window

• Contagion

Asset Composition

Composition of the asset refers to the amount and diversity of habitat types, and greatly
influences many ecosystem services. The amount and proportional representation of
natural and anthropogenic assets in southern Alberta is an important measure of
landscape condition. Amount of habitat is the single most important biodiversity
consideration (Fahrig 2002).

Natural Asset Connectivity

Asset connectivity is a measure of the spatial contiguity in a corridor or matrix (mosaic of
patches). Analyzing natural asset connectivity involves examining patch size distribution

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 62

(native prairie and forest assets), contagion of natural assets and linear disturbance
density (km/km2).

Patch Size

Maintenance of large patches of natural vegetation in the landscape is important for a
number of reasons, including:

• Habitat to sustain populations of patch interior species;

• Core habitat and escape cover for large home range vertebrates; and,

• Microhabitat proximity for multi-habitat species.

It is important to maintain the distribution of patch sizes that includes both large and
small patches within the range of natural variability. Generally speaking, large patches
provide large ecological benefits, and small patches provide small supplemental
benefits. Large patches are able to offer a quantity and quality of ecosystem services
(e.g., disturbance regulation) that no other asset condition can provide.

Thresholds and guidelines for patch size are often quoted in the conservation literature,
and are dependent on the target species in question. Kennedy et al. (2003) reviewed
1458 papers in scientific and land use planning journals to find specific information on
conservation thresholds. It was concluded that a landscape should include sufficiently
large intact and well-connected habitat patches to support the most area-sensitive
species, species of environmental concern (e.g., rare, threatened, or endangered
species) and/or focal species (Kennedy et al. 2003). Species-dependent guidelines for
patch sizes can range from 0.0004 ha (for some invertebrates) up to 220 000 ha for
wide-ranging mammals such as bears and cougars (Kennedy et al. 2003). Small
mammals (e.g., rodents) make use of patches of 1 to 10 ha in size (Kennedy et al.
2003).

Contagion of Natural Assets

Contagion describes the degree to which assets are clumped or dispersed across the
region. This metric quantifies the number of adjacencies between grid ceils of the same
asset in order to assess the aggregation of that asset. High values of contagion
describe a highly dispersed landscape with high spatial variety (e.g., a forest landscape
interspersed with small patches of other cover types such as streams or wetlands,
versus an agricultural landscape dominated by a cereal crop). High spatial diversity
(high contagion) can provide important habitat for those species with life history
requirements for multiple habitats in close proximity. However, high contagion in the
landscape can mean more edge, which can increase predation, invasive species
establishment and spread, and more barriers to species movement. Land managers
should try to retain typical levels of contagion in the landscape as a prudent way of
retaining associated services such as habitat and refugia.

Linear Disturbance Density

Linear disturbance density is another measure of asset connectivity or landscape
fragmentation. Linear disturbances can be deterrents or barriers to species movement,

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 63

and can therefore fragment populations and make them more susceptible to stochastic
events. Linear disturbance analysis includes assessment of vehicular roads as well as
all linear disturbances (trails, railways, seismic lines, pipelines and transmission lines).

Natural Asset Configuration

Spatial configuration refers to the arrangement and juxtaposition of patches within
natural assets and affects ecosystem services, species use and biodiversity. Important
aspects of configuration include the amount of edge and number of natural asset types.

Boundaries and Edges

The length and density of edges are measures of the type and predominance of
boundaries in a landscape. This influences species movement and disturbance flows
(fire, wind etc.) as well as the types of species utilizing the area. Fewer bird species are
often reported in exterior edges of patches. While edge species do play important roles,
they tend to be generalists that tolerate frequent disturbance. Edge habitats also often
favour the invasion of non-native species such as weeds or cowbirds, which may
displace other species. In general, landscape managers do not manage for edge.
Rather, they manage to maintain the amount of large patch interiors, which are inversely
proportional to edge.

Patch Arrangement

Patch arrangement affects species use of natural asset patches. Different arrangements
and patch adjacencies may lead to the creation of convergence points of habitat types.
These locations may be of particular importance to certain species that require multi¬
habitats and a diversity of adjacent resources.

4.4.2 Potential Implications to Goods and Ecosystem Services from Changes in
Asset Condition

Table 4-4 describes the potential impacts of changes in asset condition. The analysis is
qualitative and is intended to assess the trend and magnitude in the provision of
ecosystem services, assuming a continued decline in the condition of natural assets in
southern Alberta. The assessment draws upon the evaluation of the relationships
between ecosystem services, assets and goods conducted as part of this project.

With the exception of gas regulation and climate regulation (where the effects of change
in asset condition are difficult to evaluate), the provision of all other ecosystem services
in southern Alberta is predicted to decline in the long term. The exception to this trend is
food production and the production of raw materials that are expected to increase in the
short to mid-term but decline in the long term. The magnitude of this effect is predicted
to be high for the services of disturbance regulation, water regulation, biological control,
pollination, habitat/refugia, water supply, food production, raw materials, genetic
resources, aesthetic, spiritual/traditional and recreation.

The assessment is theoretical and requires further modelling with real data and
importance coefficients to verify these predictions. Additional understanding of the
relationships between natural asset condition and provision of ecosystem services is
also required.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 64

Table 4-4: Potential Implications to Ecosystem Services
Resulting From a Change in Asset Condition

Service

Trend
(Up, Down,
Unknown)

Magnitude

(Low,

Moderate,

High)

Description of Impact

Regulating Services I

Gas Regulation

Unknown

Low

Minor reduction in the regulation of the chemical
composition of the atmosphere and oceans.
Extremely difficult to quantify regional
cause/effects.

Climate

Regulation

Unknown

Moderate

Minor reduction in regulation of global
temperature, precipitation, and other climate
processes at global or local levels. Extremely
difficult to quantify regional cause/effects.

Disturbance

Regulation

Down

High

Reduction in dampening of environmental
fluctuations and disturbances.

Storm protection, flood control, drought recovery
will be reduced. May have significant negative
impacts on forestry, agriculture and recreation. j

Water

Regulation

Down

High

Role of land cover in regulating runoff and river
discharge may be reduced

Drainage and irrigation will be negatively affected.
Urban flood-prone areas will be affected and
infrastructure costs could rise. Recreation and
fisheries negatively impacted.

Erosion Control
and Sediment
Retention

Down

Moderate

Soil loss by wind or runoff will be increased; |

storage of silt in lakes or wetlands will be
increased reducing effectiveness and increasing
maintenance costs; Water quality will be reduced
as increased chemicals and nutrients are
transported in higher volumes of sediment.

Waste

Treatment

Down

Moderate

Recovery and breakdown of nutrients and
hazardous compounds will be reduced as natural
asset condition declines. Riparian buffers will
have reduced effectiveness and water quality will
be reduced.

Biological

Control

Down

High

A decline in the regulation of pest populations and
disease is expected. Major impacts may be
expected to agriculture and forestry.

Supporting Services

Soil Formation

Down

Moderate

Soil formation processes are altered as diversity
of soil biota and rooting levels are reduced. The
accumulation of organic material may be reduced.

Primary

Production

Down

Moderate

Long-term primary production will be reduced due
to a loss in soil formation and reduction in rooting
zone diversity, e.g. simplified vegetation diversity
taking advantage of fewer rooting zones.

Negative impacts for carbon sequestration.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 65

Table 4-4 cont’d: Potential Implications to Services of Change in Asset Condition

Service

Trend
(Up, Down,
Unknown)

Magnitude

(Low,

Moderate,

High)

Description of Impact

Nutrient

Cycling

Down

Moderate

Cycling and acquisition of nutrients may be
altered as soil and organic loss increases due to
changes in land cover. Imported nutrients added
to systems may have large impacts on aquatic ;

resources as the buffering capacity of
ecosystems is reduced.

Pollination

Down

High

Movement of native floral pollinators will be
affected by changes in land cover. Increased
pesticide and chemical use negatively affects bee
populations and large changes in populations are
already noted. The value of honeybee pollination
in Canada is estimated at one billion dollars
annually and multi-million dollar losses may
occur, as colonies are lost.

Habitat/refug ia Down

Provisioning Services

High

Habitat for resident and transient populations will
be lost and native species will be replaced.
Traditional lifestyles will be affected and
recreation and tourism opportunities will be lost.
Biodiversity will be reduced.

Water Supply

Down

High

Storage and retention of water by watersheds,
reservoirs, and aquifers may be reduced as
agricultural and impervious surfaces cover types
expand and increase runoff. Agriculture, urban
areas and industry (including the energy sector)
may be greatly affected by reductions in water
supply.

Food

Production

Up (short term)

High

Production of crops and livestock may be
increased in the short term but the ability of the

Down (long
term)

Moderate

land to sustainably produce food in the long term
will be reduced as greater amounts of inputs are
required to adjust for losses in soil fertility.

Livestock production will be threatened as high
protein drought resistant native fescue grasslands
are reduced. Game and fisheries will be reduced
due to loss of habitat quantity and quality.

Raw Materials

Up (short term)

High

Fibre (lumber and pulp) production may be
reduced due to increased disturbance (fire and

Down (long
term)

High

insects). There may be short-term gains due to
“pulse” cutting. Production of non-renewable
fuels, and geological materials (aggregates,
minerals) are likely to increase in the short to mid
term.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 66

Table 4-4 cont’d: Potential Implications to Services of Change in Asset Condition

Service

Trend
(Up, Down,
Unknown)

Magnitude

(Low,

Moderate,

High)

Description of Impact

Genetic

Resources

Down

High

Sources of unique biological materials and
products will be irrevocably lost.

The range of genetic resources will be reduced,
as native biodiversity is lost.

Cultural and Aesthetic Services

Aesthetic

Down

High

Enjoyment of functioning ecological systems will
be reduced as landscapes are transformed. Most
Albertans will feel the non-market value of the
losses. Increased forestry operations have and
will continue to significantly reduce the scenic
quality of southern Alberta. An aesthetic resource
of global importance will be significantly impacted.
Prairie landscapes will be impacted by oil and gas
exploration and production. Tourism will be
affected.

Spiritual and
Traditional Use

Down

High

Traditional uses for aboriginal and non-aboriginal
populations will continue to be lost. Spiritual sites
and religious activities will be affected directly and
indirectly as their context changes. Cultural
disillusionment may increase with associated
societal costs.

Science and
Education

Down

Moderate

Use of natural areas for scientific and educational
enhancement may expand as public knowledge
of natural systems increases. However, the
resources on which the education is based will be
reduced. Opportunities for “benchmarking” of
natural systems will be lost to scientists and
researchers.

Recreation

Down

High

Opportunities for rest, refreshment, and
recreation will be reduced forest and grassland
ecosystems are impacted by forestry and other
land uses.

Eco-tourism may see a decline due to failure to
meet international expectations.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 67

4.4.3 Modeling Effects of Changes to Asset Condition

To create a model that would take asset condition into account, an additional coefficient
can be added into the equations for the index of service provision and the index of good
production (refer to Section 4.3). This coefficient would rate the condition of the asset on
a scale of 0 to 1, based on a number of pre-defined criteria (e.g., fragmentation, native
vegetation, etc.).

The equation for the provision of services would then look like this:

Provision of Service 1 in southern Alberta =

(A] x SA1 x CA1 )+ (A2 x SA2 x CAI ) + ... + (A3s x SA35 x CA1 )

200

Where,

A =

* % Asset x in southern Alberta

c _

ax Importance of Asset x to providing Service 1

p _

ax Condition rating for Asset 1 (between 0 and 1)

And the equation for the production of goods directly from assets:

Provision of Good 1 in southern Alberta =

(A) xGa1 xIA1G1 xCa1)+(A2 xGA2 xIa2gi x CA1 )+••• + (Ajg xGa35 xIa35G1 XCA1)

300

Where,

A —

x % Asset x in southern Alberta
uax “ Importance of Asset x to providing Good 1

Iaxgi _ Societal/economic importance coefficient for rating the importance of Good 1
produced by Asset x (between 0 and 1 )

p —

ax Condition rating for Asset 1 (between 0 and 1)

Since the third index, the ability of ecosystem services to support good production, uses
the results from the index of service provision, no additional coefficients are needed.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 68

4.5 Overall Ranking of the Importance of Ecosystem Services

Purpose

In addition to considering the individual values of ecosystem services to the
maintenance of assets or the production of goods in southern Alberta, a combined
overall ranking of each service was considered in relation to the following four variables:

• Importance of the service to the production of goods;

• Importance of the service to the maintenance of assets;

• Relative importance at the margin (the impact of a small change in status of a
service on the production of a good or maintenance of an asset); and,

• Manageability (the ability to manage the asset to ensure the delivery of the
service).

This analysis differs from that completed in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 in that it
considers the importance of the service within each natural and anthropogenic asset and
then ranks each ecosystem service considering the importance of all four variables
combined.

Methods

si

The methodology for this evaluation of overall importance followed that of the Ecosystem
Services Project (Ecosystem Services Project, n.d.). In addition to these variables, a
final evaluation was undertaken to assess the degree of knowledge of a specific
ecosystem service in a particular asset. This evaluation was not considered as part of
the overall evaluation but should be used to identify priorities for further investigation and
study.

Specific methods employed for each variable are discussed in each of the sections that
follow (4.5.1 to 4.5.4).

The result of this analysis is the production of 20 summary tables for each ecosystem
service that are presented on the following pages. Each is a tabulation by asset of the
value of that particular ecosystem service considering the four variables above. A
discussion follows on the evaluation by each variable (Sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.4). Finally
Section 4.5.5 discusses the overall ranking of the importance of ecosystem services in
southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

4.5.1 Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods
Purpose

Page 69

This analysis assesses the importance of the individual service to the production of
goods in each natural and anthropogenic asset (see Column B in Appendices 9-7 to 9-
26).

Methods

The importance of each ecosystem service to the production of goods was discussed
previously in Section 4.2. In order to assess the importance of each of the 20 ecosystem
services to the production of goods in each asset, additional analysis was required. This
was completed by using the analysis of Appendix 9-4 in conjunction with Appendix 9-27
that shows the occurrence of the production of goods in each asset (yes/no only). This
assumes an equal value for the production of each good in each asset, as no economic
production data were available.

A number of intermediate tables were then produced to calculate the values in Column B
(Importance of service to the production of goods) of Appendices 9-7 to 9-26. This
column (for each service) is the product of a spreadsheet that calculates a “basket of
goods” for each asset shown. The basket of goods is then ranked for each good’s
importance with respect to the service being analyzed. This approach was taken to
enable the value of a service to the production of goods to be represented in a table
driven by assets and not goods.

The EGS Assessment used categories of low/moderate/high to rank services in various
tables, and divided the rankings into thirds; therefore the highest third will be analysed in
this section.

Findings

Table 4-5 shows the ranking of the importance of ecosystem services to the production
of goods. The values in Table 4-5 through Table 4-9 represent the average value of the
importance to maintenance of assets, production of goods, importance at the margin and
manageability. The following discussion describes the top six ecosystem services that
are of greatest importance to the production of goods in southern Alberta. Three of the
six are regulating services and include: climate regulation; disturbance regulation; and
water regulation. Two supporting services including primary production and nutrient
cycling are also of great importance to the production of goods while the provisioning
service of water supply rounds out the top six.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Table 4-5: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Importance of service to the
production of goods

1

Climate regulation

2.0

2

Water supply

1.9 !

3

Primary production

1.8 j

3

Disturbance regulation

1.8

3

Water regulation

1.8 |

3

Nutrient cycling

1.8

7

Gas regulation

1.7

7

Biological control

1.7

9

Pollination

1.6

9

Spiritual and traditional use

1.6 |

11

Erosion control and sediment retention

1.4

11

Raw materials

1.4

11

Science and education

1.4

14

Recreation

1.3

15

Genetic resources

1.2

16

Habitat/Refugia

1.1

16

Waste treatment

1.1

18

Soil formation

1.0

18

Food production

1.0

18

Aesthetic

1.0

Climate Regulation

The impact of altered temperature and precipitation levels on the production of goods is
ranked as moderate for most of the assets in southern Alberta. The result is a high
ranking for this service with respect to the production of goods (see Table 4-5). There
are a large number of goods produced in southern Alberta that are sensitive to the
impacts of climate (e.g. agriculture, forestry, subsistence, tourism, and aesthetics).

Water Supply

Most goods produced in southern Alberta have a moderate to high reliance on a stable
water supply. Agricultural assets rely on water for sustenance, and anthropogenic
assets such as cities, industry, and utilities require large amounts of water.

Primary Production

Most goods in southern Alberta are linked back to primary production in some way. For
each asset listed in Appendix 9-27 there are a large number of goods that rely on
primary production. Examples include: agriculture, forestry, subsistence, tourism, and
aesthetics. While some goods may not be viewed as directly linked to primary
production (tourist services and aesthetics) they depend upon intact vegetation
communities.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 71

Disturbance Regulation

The impact of extreme weather events on the production of goods is ranked as
moderate for most of the assets in southern Alberta. The result is a high ranking for this
service with respect to the production of goods (see Table 4-5). There are a large
number of goods produced in southern Alberta that are sensitive to the impacts of
extreme weather (e.g. agriculture, forestry, subsistence, tourism, and aesthetics).

Water Regulation

Many goods produced in southern Alberta have a moderate to high reliance on water
regulation. Many agricultural assets rely on overland water supply, while native prairie
assets depend on direct rainfall. Anthropogenic assets do not rely as heavily on water
regulation as they did on water supply because the regulation function is often an
engineered solution.

Nutrient Cycling

Most goods in southern Alberta can be linked back to primary production in some way,
and thus, are most often reliant on nutrient cycling. For each asset listed in Appendix 9-
27 there were a large number of goods that rely on nutrient cycling - primarily the
natural assets. Examples include: agriculture, forestry, subsistence, biodiversity and
future options. The only goods from primary production that may be exempt from the
requirement of nutrient cycling are those that receive nutrients from anthropogenic inputs
(e.g. agricultural crops).

Raw Materials

It might be expected that this provisioning service would be highly ranked in terms of
production of goods. Analysis shows that it is not for when the goods produced by raw
materials are distributed across all assets, there is a relatively low number of goods for
each asset. This results in low rankings for many rows (e.g. prairie grasses). Because
no relative valuation of goods (e.g. $ value) was used in this EGS Assessment, a small
number of (very important) goods such as livestock for each asset results in a low
overall rank for this provisioning service.

4.5.2 Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets

Purpose

This analysis assesses the importance of each ecosystem service to the maintenance of
each natural and anthropogenic asset.

Methods

The scores for each service for the importance to the maintenance of assets are shown
in column C of Appendices 9-27 to 9-26. This column represents the average rank of
each service across all assets in southern Alberta. For example, one component of the
average is the impact of erosion control on fescue grasslands.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 72

Findings

Table 4-6 shows the ranked importance of ecosystem services to the maintenance of
assets. The most important services with respect to maintaining assets are all in the
categories of regulating and supporting services. These services are of key importance
to the maintenance and support of other services and assets in southern Alberta.

Table 4-6: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Importance of service to the
maintenance of assets

1

Erosion control and sediment retention

2.6

1

Waste treatment

2.6

3

Disturbance regulation

2.5

3

Climate regulation

2.5 j

3

Nutrient cycling

2.5

3

Biological control

2.5

7

Primary production

2.4

7

Water regulation

2.4

9

Aesthetic

2.3

9

Soil formation

2.3

9

Water supply

2.3

! 9

Gas regulation

2.3

12

Pollination

2.1

12

Spiritual and traditional use

2.1

12

Recreation

2.1

16

Science and education

2.0

17

Habitat/Refugia

1.9

18

Raw materials

1.8

19

Food production

1.4 j

20

Genetic resources

1.3

The following is a discussion of the top six ecosystem services that are of greatest
importance to the maintenance of assets (natural and anthropogenic). Five of the top six
are regulating services and include: erosion control; waste treatment; disturbance
regulation; climate regulation; and biological control. The final ecosystem service of
greatest importance to the maintenance of assets is the supporting service of nutrient
cycling.

Erosion Control and Sediment Retention

This service is ranked as highly important for most biotic assets due to the potential
impact of erosion on primary production and soil formation. The biotic assets that are
maintained by this service include: prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops and
aquatic assets. This service was ranked as moderately important for several
anthropogenic assets due to the possibility of damage to the built environment, for
example: campgrounds, human settlements, and oil field infrastructure.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 73

Waste Treatment

The service of waste treatment was deemed of high importance for most biotic assets
due to sensitivity to anthropogenic or human waste products, for example: prairie
grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops and aquatic assets. It was also deemed of high
importance to several anthropogenic assets, including: human settlements, feedlots, and
campgrounds.

Disturbance Regulation

Disturbance regulation was deemed of high importance for the maintenance of almost all
biotic assets in southern Alberta. The avoidance of extreme weather events (storms,
floods, tornados) was seen to be of great importance to: native prairie grasses, riparian
zones, forests, crops and aquatic assets. Disturbance regulation was also seen as a
highly important service or moderately important service for protecting anthropogenic
assets. The importance was lower than for natural assets due to the human ability to
“protect” assets, for example, hardened surfaces in settlements or rip-rap on river banks.
Anthropogenic assets of high importance include human settlements, where extreme
financial and loss of life is possible. Anthropogenic assets of moderate importance
include roads, well sites, pipelines, and feedlots.

Climate Regulation

Climate regulation is considered to be highly important to the maintenance of almost all
biotic assets in southern Alberta. The avoidance of climate extremes (altered
precipitation and temperature regime) was seen to be of great importance to: native
prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops, aquatic assets, bare soil, and ice. Climate
regulation was also seen as a moderately important service for protecting anthropogenic
assets. This importance was lower than for natural assets due to the human ability to
“protect” assets, for example, hardened surfaces in settlements. Anthropogenic assets
of moderate importance include human settlements, where extreme financial and loss of
life is possible. This service did not impact some assets to the degree that disturbance
regulation did, simply due to the lower intensity of disturbances to: roads, well sites,
pipelines, and feedlots.

Nutrient Cycling

Nutrient cycling is deemed to be of high importance to the maintenance of almost all
biotic assets in southern Alberta. This is because of the importance of primary
production to the region and the connection between nutrient cycling and primary
production. Biotic assets that are highly dependent on this service for maintenance
include: prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops, and aquatic assets.

Biological Control

Biological control is deemed of high importance for the maintenance of almost all biotic
assets in southern Alberta. This is due to the potential impact of pests and diseases on
the southern Alberta landscape (e.g. grasshoppers, West Nile virus, pine beetle) and the
importance of maintaining balanced predator prey relationships. The importance of the
service was high for assets including: native prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests,

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 74

crops and aquatic assets. It was also considered of high importance to anthropogenic
assets, including human settlements, feedlots, and campgrounds.

4.5.3 Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin

Purpose

This analysis assesses the sensitivity of ecosystem services in relation to their capability
to produce goods or maintain natural and anthropogenic assets. In other words, what is
the impact of a small change in status of a service on the production of a good or
maintenance of an asset?

Methods

The analysis was undertaken in two parts. Two input tables were created in order to
assess the importance of ecosystem services at the margin. Appendix 9-28 shows the
sensitivity at the margin in relation to the production of goods and Appendix 9-29 the
sensitivity at the margin in relation to maintenance of assets.

The scores for each service for the importance at the margin were taken from the fifth
column of Appendices 9-7 to 9-26. This column represents the average rank of each
service across all assets in southern Alberta. For example, one component of the
average is the impact of disturbance regulation at the margin for fescue grasslands.

Services that are important at the margin include those where a small change in the
integrity of the service may result in a large change in the production of goods or to the
maintenance of the asset. The assessment of this relationship is complex to assess,
and it is recommended that the findings in this report be further verified with additional
scientific study.

Table 4-7 shows the overall results of the importance of ecosystem services at the
margin. It was found that primarily the regulating services (and one supporting service)
tend to have the most importance at the margin. This is likely because regulating and
supporting services typically act on other services. This can have an amplifying effect, in
that a small change in the support of another service can have a large impact on goods
and assets in southern Alberta.

The following is a discussion with respect to the five most important ecosystem services
at the margin. These include four regulating services (disturbance regulation, biological
control, climate regulation and waste treatment) and the supporting service of nutrient
cycling.

Each of these services was also found in the previous list of most important services to
the maintenance of assets. The only service in the previous list not found here was
erosion control. While an important service for the maintenance function, it was not
seen to have an amplifying effect or high importance at the margin.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 75

Table 4-7: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Importance of service at the
margin

1

Disturbance regulation

2.4

2

Biological control

2.3

2

Climate regulation

2.3

4

Nutrient cycling

2.1

5

Waste treatment

1.9

6

Soil formation

1.8

7

Water supply

1.7

8

Erosion control and sediment retention

1.6

9

Water regulation

1.5

9

Pollination

1.5

9

Raw materials

1.5

12

Habitat/Refugia

1.4

13

Primary production

1.3

14

Gas regulation

1.2

14

Food production

1.2

15

Recreation

1.1

16

Science and education

1.0

16

Genetic resources

1.0

16

Aesthetic

1.0

16

Spiritual and traditional use

1.0

Disturbance Regulation

Disturbance regulation was deemed to be highly important at the margin relative to
almost all biotic assets in southern Alberta. A small change in the ability to prevent
extreme storms, floods, or droughts could result in a relatively large impact to the region.
The avoidance of extreme weather events (storms, floods, tornados) was seen to be of
great importance to: native prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops and aquatic
assets. Disturbance regulation was also seen as a highly important service or
moderately important service for protecting anthropogenic assets. The importance was
lower than for natural assets due to the human ability to “protect” assets, for example,
hardened surfaces in settlements or rip-rap on river banks. Human settlements where
extreme financial and loss of life is possible were considered highly important.
Anthropogenic assets of moderate importance include: roads, well sites, pipelines and
other linear facilities, industrial sites, and feedlots.

Biological Control

Biological control is considered to be of high importance at the margin for almost all
biotic assets in southern Alberta. This is because of the potential impact of pests and
diseases and the importance of maintaining predator prey relationships. It is likely that if
a slight reduction in the pest control function allows pests to establish a small foothold,
then a major outbreak could occur. The importance of the service was high for assets
including prairie grasses, and spruce and pine forests. It was also deemed important to
anthropogenic assets, including human settlements, feedlots, and campgrounds.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 76

Climate Regulation

Climate regulation was judged to be of high importance at the margin for almost all biotic
assets in southern Alberta. A small change in the efficacy of this service could result in
a large impact to natural and anthropogenic assets. The avoidance of climate extremes
(altered precipitation and temperature regimes) was seen to be of great importance to
prairie grasses, riparian zones, forests, crops, and wetlands. Climate regulation was
also seen as a moderately important service for protecting anthropogenic assets. The
importance was lower than for natural assets due to the human ability to “protect”
assets. Anthropogenic assets of moderate importance include human settlements,
roads, well sites, campgrounds and pipelines and other linear facilities.

Nutrient Cycling

Nutrient cycling is regarded as having high importance at the margin to almost all biotic
assets in southern Alberta. This is because of the importance of primary production to
the region and the connection between nutrient cycling and primary production. Biotic
assets that are highly sensitive at the margin include: crops and aquatic assets. Those
moderately sensitive include: prairie grasses, forests, and human habitation. Because of
the complexity of this service, further analysis and investigation is warranted.

Waste Treatment

The service of waste treatment was deemed of high importance at the margin for most
biotic assets due to sensitivity to anthropogenic or human waste products. It was
deemed that a small change in natural waste treatment function could result in the
accumulation of waste products and have a moderate or large impact on assets (e.g. a
small amount of bacteria in drinking water can have a significant impact on humans).
Assets that could be highly impacted include: crops (due to the economic impacts of
changes to yield). Moderate impacts could be seen on: native prairie grasses, riparian
zone, forests, and human settlements.

4.5.4 Ability to Manage the Assets to Provide Services

Purpose

This analysis assesses the ability to manage the asset to provide the service. This
includes both natural and anthropogenic assets.

Methods

The assessment of the ability for humans to manage individual ecosystem services
within assets (manageability) was a highly subjective exercise. The information
presented in Appendix 9-30 represents the collective professional opinion of the project
team and may require further refinement and input by relevant professionals and
resource managers. This assessment took into account the ability for humans to
manage assets at a reasonable cost whilst generating a significant improvement to
ecosystem services, and thus goods. It should be noted that low scoring services (e.g.
pollination or climate regulation) may reflect a data gap and could suggest a need for
additional primary research.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 77

The assessment of the manageability of ecosystem services to provide assets was
based upon the following three criteria:

• Of low ability to manage or not applicable (1 )

• Moderate ability to manage (2)

• High ability to manage (3)

The ability to manage assets to provide services was assessed for each ecosystem
service at each asset type. The value given to the availability of data at each asset type
(1 , 2, or 3) was then averaged in the final spreadsheet. The result of the average score
determines the final ranking that is represented by the number appearing in Table 4-8.

Findings

Table 4-8 shows the ranking of ecosystem services in consideration of our ability to
manage each of the 36 assets to either enhance or maintain the 20 ecosystem services.

Table 4-8: Ability to Manage Ecosystem Services

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Ability to manage asset for
service

1

Science and education

2.9

2

Aesthetic

2.3

2

Recreation

2.3

! 2

Erosion control and sediment retention

2.3

5

Raw materials

2.2

6

Water supply

2.1

6

Primary production

2.1

6

Habitat/Refugia

2.1

6

Nutrient cycling

2.1

| 10

Food production

2.0

11

Gas regulation

1.9 i

12

Genetic resources

1.8

13

Waste treatment

1.7

13

Spiritual and traditional use

1.7

13

Water regulation

1.7

16

Disturbance regulation

1.5

! 16

Biological control

1.5 ;

16

Soil formation

1.5

19

Climate regulation

1.4

19

Pollination

1.4

The following discussion considers the five ecosystem services that are thought to be
most reactive to the management of assets in southern Alberta. Three out of the top five
are cultural uses and include: science and education; aesthetic; and recreation. It is not
all that surprising that the most reactive services are cultural services. In addition, the
regulating services of erosion control and sediment retention; and the provisioning
service of raw materials comprise the remaining ecosystem services that are considered
to be most responsive to the management of assets.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 78

Science and Education

The cultural service of science and education that uses natural areas for educational
enhancement was determined to be the most responsive service by a significant margin.
In terms of the 36 asset types that were assessed, it was determined that there is a high
capacity for humans to manage the assets to provide for science and education on 34 of
them. While natural assets such as native grasslands, forests, lakes, rivers and
wetlands are obvious in terms of their ability to provide an educational benefit,
anthropogenic assets provide a very similar opportunity.

Aesthetic

The ability to provide for the cultural service of aesthetics tied with recreation, erosion
control and sediment retention, and raw materials for the second most responsive
ecosystem service. Humans have proven their ability to intervene to provide for those
items of greatest value to them, and aesthetics is certainly one of those given high
priority. This is especially true in natural areas of high recreational importance such as
forest and aquatic assets and anthropogenic assets such as cities and towns,
campgrounds and ski hills, and reservoirs. Fifteen of the 36 assets were viewed to have
significant potential for managing to provide for the service of aesthetics.

Recreation

The ability to manage assets to provide for the cultural service of recreation is quite
similar to that of aesthetic. It should however be noted that our ability to manage assets
to provide for recreation is thought to be high on 21 of 36 asset types including native
prairie, forests and aquatic landscapes; and in residential areas, campgrounds and
reservoirs. While the number of assets where there is a high ability to manage for
recreational activities is greater than for aesthetic, there is also a low ability to manage a
greater number of assets, such as agricultural.

Erosion Control and Sediment Retention

Erosion control and sediment retention is the only regulating service that was deemed to
have significant opportunity in terms of the manageability of assets to provide for the
service. Given the hardships associated with erosion the 1930s, erosion control and
sediment retention have received high priority in southern Alberta. The result is a vast
array of engineering adaptations to reduce erosion and control sediment in constructed
environments. On agricultural lands, new practices of zero and minimum tillage have
improved the retention of topsoil in arid environments. The result is that 15 of the 36
assets were considered to be highly manageable for this service.

Raw Materials

Raw materials was the only provisioning service where it was assessed that the
management of assets would have a significant influence on the ecosystem service. A
total of 19 of 36 assets were deemed to have high manageability with respect to raw
materials.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 79

4.5.5 Overall Ranking of Ecosystem Services
Purpose

This analysis determines an overall ranking of the importance of ecosystem services in
southern Alberta, considering each of the four aforementioned variables (importance to
production of goods, importance to maintenance of assets, importance at the margin and
manageability).

Methods

The overall ranking of each ecosystem service is an aggregation of each of the
preceding tables: importance of service to the production of goods; importance of the
service to the maintenance of assets; importance of service at the margin; and the ability
to manage the asset to provide the service. The weightings of each column (B, C, D, E,)
were assumed to be of equal importance. The columns were then summed having used
a value of 1 , 2 or 3 to represent low, moderate, or high importance for each criterion with
a minimum possible value of 4 and a maximum possible value of 12 for each asset
relative to each service. Given this range, it was then possible to create a series of new
ranges (4-6 = low; 7-9 = moderate, 10-12 = high) for each asset type and reassigned a
new value of 1, 2 or 3 to be consistent with preceding columns. As a final step, the
values of each of the 36 asset types were averaged to create an overall ranking for each
ecosystem service, which is the number represented in Table 4-9.

The range (from a low of 1.2 to a high of 2.1) for the overall ranking of ecosystem
services is not large and reflects the importance of all ecosystem services to providing a
sustainable future for southern Alberta.

The following is a brief discussion with respect to the six highest overall ranked
ecosystem services. These include four regulating services (disturbance regulation,
climate regulation, erosion control and sediment retention and biological control), one
supporting service (nutrient cycling) and one provisioning service (water supply).

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 80

Table 4-9: Overall Ranking of the Importance of Ecosystem Services

in Southern Alberta

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Overall ranking

1

Nutrient cycling

2.1

1

Disturbance regulation

2.1

3

Erosion control and sediment retention

2.0

3

Water supply

2.0

3

Biological control

2.0

3

Climate regulation

2.0

7

Waste treatment

1.9

| 7

Primary production

1.9

7

Water regulation

1.9

10

Science and education

1.8

11

Gas regulation

1.7

11

Recreation

1.7

11

Raw materials

1.7 |

14

Aesthetic

1.6

14

Soil formation

1.6

14

Habitat/Refug ia

1.6

17

Pollination

1.5

17

Spiritual and traditional use

1.5

19

Food production

1.3

20

Genetic resources

1.2

Nutrient Cycling

Nutrient cycling (or biogeochemical cycling) is a supporting service and is defined as the
storage, internal cycling, processing and acquisition of nutrients such as carbon,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur. Nutrient cycling tied with disturbance regulation for
the most important ecosystem service of the twenty services assessed. This is largely
because nutrient cycling is a fundamental process occurring in an ecosystem with
dramatic effects on individuals, populations and communities.

In our assessment of nutrient cycling, this process was considered significant in nearly
all asset types, and of critical importance to fourteen asset types including forests,
agricultural lands, aquatic environments and other anthropogenic assets such as cities
and towns and feedlots.

Disturbance Regulation

Disturbance regulation is a regulating service defined as the dampening of
environmental fluctuations and disturbances such as floods and fires. It received a
ranking equal to nutrient cycling. Disturbance regulation was seen to be of critical
importance for seven asset types, including forests, cereal crops, and cities and towns.

Erosion Control and Sediment Retention

Erosion control and sediment retention is a regulating service important for the retention
of soil within an ecosystem. It tied for third ranked ecosystem service. Like the

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 81

preceding services, erosion and sediment control was seen to be of at least moderate
importance in nearly all asset types. Erosion and sediment control was considered
highly important to the functioning of six asset types including forests, cereal crops and
in riparian zones.

Water Supply

Water supply is a provisioning service for the storage and retention of both surface and
subsurface water by watersheds. It was the only provisioning service to make the top
six important services. The importance of watersheds is not surprising given the
predominance of semi-arid landscapes in southern Alberta. Overall, water supply was
seen to be of high importance to fourteen asset types, the most of any service. Water
supply was most important to anthropogenic assets rather than natural assets, including
nearly all agricultural landscapes, rural/agricultural residential, cities and towns,
industrial sites, reservoirs and canals.

Biological Control

Biological control is an important regulating service for the control or regulation of pest
populations and the regulation of trophic relationships. Successful biological control
operates at the population level, not the individual level, and requires a detailed
understanding of species interactions across a number of trophic levels. Biological
control was considered to be of greatest importance in areas where goods are
harvested. A total of seven forest and agricultural landscapes denote the high
importance of this service to southern Alberta. Contemporary concerns, such as West
Nile virus and the Mountain Pine Beetle, factored heavily into the high importance value
attributed to this service.

Climate Regulation

Climate regulation is important for the regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and
other climate processes at global or local levels. Climate regulation was noted to be of
critical importance to the ongoing functioning of six natural asset types, including all
forest covers and prairie treed and riparian complex.

4.6 Knowledge of Ecosystem Services in Southern Alberta

Purpose

This analysis assesses knowledge of the function and process of ecosystem services in
southern Alberta. It is intended to identify those services where we have a good level of
understanding and those where more research and investigation is needed. This
analysis could be supplemented at a later date with an additional assessment of data
availability (both spatial and non-spatial) for each asset.

Methods

The assessment of our knowledge of ecosystem services in southern Alberta was a
highly subjective exercise. It is considered to be preliminary and represents the
professional opinions of the project team and will likely require further refinement and
input by relevant professionals. The assessment was completed independently of the

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 82

overall ranking of ecosystem services. Rather, the information is presented to give the
reader an understanding of how well we understand these ecosystem services relative
to their overall importance. The usefulness of this data is that a highly important
ecosystem service with a low score for availability of data could suggest a need for
additional primary research in this subject area.

The assessment of knowledge with regard to each ecosystem service by asset was
undertaken using the following four rankings (see Appendix 9-31):

• Not Applicable (0)

• Understanding/ Availability (1 )

• Moderate Understanding/ Availability (2)

• High Understanding/ Availability (3)

The value given to the availability of data at each asset type (0, 1, 2, or 3) was then
averaged with all “Not Applicable” data ranges removed from the formula.

Findings

The overall ranking of ecosystem services with respect to knowledge of function and
process is shown in Table 4-10. The seven highest ranked services include the
regulating services of water regulation, and erosion control and sediment retention; the
supporting services of habitat/refugia and primary production; the provisioning services
of raw materials and food production; and the cultural service provided by recreation.

Table 4-10: Ranking With Respect to Knowledge of Ecosystem Services

in Southern Alberta

Rank

Ecosystem Services

Knowledge of ecosystem
services

1

Recreation

3.0

1

Habitat/Refugia

3.0

3

Water regulation

2.9

3

Erosion control and sediment retention

2.9

5

Raw materials

2.8

! 6

Food production

2.7

6

Primary production

2.7

8

Soil formation

2.6

9

Waste treatment

2.2

9

Science and education

2.2

9

Nutrient cycling

2.2

! 12

Disturbance regulation

2.1

12

Aesthetic

2.1

12

Climate regulation

2.1

15

Spiritual and traditional use

2.0

16

Water supply

1.9

16

Biological control

1.9

! 18

Gas regulation

1.8

18

Pollination

1.8

20

Genetic resources

1.5

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 83

The provisioning service provided by genetic resources was the lowest ranked service
with respect to our current levels of understanding, and is also discussed briefly. Of note
is that there is a gap between our understanding of these services and our willingness to
manage the service to provide the asset. This assessment considers our understanding,
not our willingness or ability to manage assets to provide ecosystem services.

Recreation

Recreation and habitat/refugia tied for first ranking with respect our knowledge of the
function and process of ecosystem services, scoring a maximum value of 3.0. Our
knowledge of the service of recreation was considered high for 31 of 36 asset types.
There was little or no applicability of recreational uses to five anthropogenic assets
including well sites, pipelines, transmission and seismic lines, feedlots, mines and pits
and industrial sites. A score of 3.0 does not suggest that we know everything there is to
know about this service at each asset type, but rather, our understanding of these
services in southern Alberta is high relative to other services.

Habitat/Refugia

Habitat/refugia tied with recreation in terms of our current understanding of the
ecosystem service across the various asset types considered. Current knowledge of
habitat and species of terrestrial populations across southern Alberta is high,
representing the level of effort recently expended on inventories and the identification of
remaining areas of native habitat. Our knowledge of habitat and refugia in aquatic
environments is not considered as high as those of terrestrial systems.

Water Regulation

Our level of understanding of water regulation in southern Alberta is high, scoring a
ranking of 2.9. The understanding of water regulation was ranked high in 31 assets and
moderate in the remaining five (all native prairie landscapes). The importance of trees,
such as poplar and cottonwoods, to absorb and retain water in riparian areas is well
known as our knowledge of the importance of forest cover on the eastern slopes for
flood control. Our understanding of water regulation is believed to be higher than that of
water supply that ranks considerably lower largely due to the limited understanding of
regional groundwater resources in southern Alberta.

Erosion Control and Sediment Retention

As noted in Section 4.5.5, our ability to manage assets to provide ecosystem services is
high for the regulating service of erosion control and sediment retention. As a result of
this capability, our understanding of the process and function of erosion control and
sediment retention is high and tied with water regulation.

Raw Materials

Alberta and southern Alberta are regions where significant production of raw materials
(e.g. lumber, aggregates, oil and gas) from the natural landscape occurs, and it is
therefore no surprise that raw materials (a provisioning service) ranks fifth in regard to
knowledge and understanding of the service. Our assessment suggests that there is a
high level of understanding of raw materials occurring in the forest and agricultural asset

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 84

areas, but relatively less in native prairie landscapes and aquatic landscapes. Overall,
we determined that raw materials are applicable to 30 of 36 asset types and that there is
a good understanding of raw materials in 23 asset types.

Food Production

Food production (a provisioning service) is also very important to southern Alberta and it
stands to reason that this service would rank highly in terms of knowledge and
understanding. In contrast to the preceding services, food production occurs in fewer
asset types and was applicable to only 18 of 36 asset types assessed. Native prairie
landscapes are important for cattle grazing and has therefore provided for a good level
of understanding. Our understanding of food production on agricultural landscapes is
thought to be excellent and recognizes the role of southern Alberta as a significant
exporter of agricultural products.

Primary Production

Our knowledge of the role of primary production, a supporting service, is also thought to
be quite high, tying with food production for sixth highest ranking. It is not altogether
surprising that these ecosystem services ranked very closely. While primary production
is a supporting service and food production a provisioning service, these services are
intrinsically linked given that food production relies on primary production. This is not the
only interrelationship existing between services, though it is one of the most evident.

Genetic Resources

The low ranking for the provisioning service provided by genetic resources is that we still
have a great deal to learn about the services provided by nature. It is perhaps true that
we will never fully understand the genetic resources provided by natural assets despite
significant efforts to do so. Future option values provided by nature for medicinal
purposes as an example are poorly understood in the global context and this is thought
to be no different in the southern Alberta context. Genetic resources are thought to be
particularly poorly understood with respect to natural landscapes while they are quite
well known in agricultural landscapes for both crop and livestock production.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 85

5.0 Gap Analysis and Future Directions

This section of the EGS Assessment identifies information gaps regarding ecosystem
services in southern Alberta and how they should be addressed in future. The gaps are
prioritized as follows:

• High- considered to be urgent and should be undertaken in the next six months;

• Moderate - considered to be less urgent and should be undertaken in the next
year; and,

• Low - considered to be important but can only be undertaken after the other
gaps are addressed in the next 1 to 2 years.

5.1 High Priority

Gap #1 : There is a need to understand the value of goods produced in southern
_ Alberta in greater detail. _

Background

This EGS Assessment uses an aggregation of industry sectors to develop our analyses
of goods produced in southern Alberta. Not all goods will be recognized this way. The
value of the goods or industry sectors has not been assessed.

Proposed Solution

In an effort to better represent the benefits of ecosystem services in southern Alberta,
less aggregation may be desirable. The study should be more specific with respect to
which goods are being evaluated. Further, goods will need to be traced back to
determine the full extent of the inputs originating in southern Alberta. Undertaking an
assessment based upon land use similar to the Australian Ecosystem Services Project
may be a better away to account for goods rather than by industry sector. This
approach may simplify the analysis by comparing groups of assets and goods (land
uses) to services, resulting in more detailed (but perhaps less broad) analysis.

Gap #2: The EGS Assessment considered all evaluation criteria to be weighted
_ equal. _ _ _

Background

This project did not assess the relative value of each asset when compared to other
assets or the relative value of goods when compared to others. The Australian
Ecosystem Services Project addressed this by grouping goods and assets into a land
use category (e.g. Dairying). The land use was then valued in terms of dollars of goods
produced by areal extent.

A further concern occurs with respect to the equal weighting of each different analysis
conducted in this work, e.g. the importance of a service to the production of goods. At
present, each of the four variables considered in this EGS Assessment were considered
to be of equal importance with respect to the overall importance of a service. It is likely

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 86

that some adjustments will be required. For example, the ability to manage assets with
respect to the services they provide may not be as significant as the importance of a
service to the maintenance of assets.

Proposed Solution

A primary task of future work should be to create a framework to determine relative
importance of assets, goods and also the four criteria used to determine overall ranking.
Once complete this work should be revised to reflect these new weightings.

Gap #3: There is a need to conduct more in-depth research into the
interrelationships between ecosystem services and natural assets to
_ complement the results of the EGS Assessment. _

Background

The size and duration of this contract did not permit the project team sufficient time to
conduct in depth research with respect to the role of each service and each asset in the
southern Alberta context.

Proposed Solution

Future initiatives should be constructed to allow for in depth research regarding the role
of ecosystem services in the production of goods and maintenance of assets. This work
should also include identifying the interrelationships that exist between the 20 ecosystem
services that were largely considered independent of each other in this assessment. In
fact they are likely highly interrelated. It will also be important to have a comprehensive
understanding of the value of ecological components at various scales. It is suggested
that an expert workshop be held to convene a group of knowledgeable experts in EGS to
enhance the work of this initial assessment.

Gap #4: There is a need for more in-depth spatial analysis of asset condition.

Background

The current project focuses on the potential for a given asset to provide services and
goods, without a detailed examination of how the condition of that asset affects the
provision and quality of ecosystem services and goods. There are further asset condition
analyses that should be done to better assess the quality of an asset. Discussion of the
importance of these condition metrics is found in Section 4.4.

Proposed Solution

In order to accurately assess the condition of a natural asset, two scales of analyses are
recommended: regional/sub-regional evaluations (broad-scale) and field studies (fine-
scale). While the focus of the proposed work is at the broad scale, additional fine scale
surveys are required, particularly in the grasslands. Table 5-1 lists suggested analyses
and measurable parameters.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 87

Table 5-1: Asset Condition Analyses

Scale of

Analysis

Suggested Analysis

Measurable Parameter

Regional / Sub-
Regional

Asset composition

Amount and proportional representation of:

• Natural assets

• Anthropogenic assets

Natural asset connectivity

Patch Size of natural assets

Contagion of natural assets

Linear disturbance density km/km2

Natural asset
configuration

Boundaries and Edges
• Anthropogenic edge length and density
km/km2

Patch arrangement

• Number of natural asset types within 1 km2
moving window

Field Studies

Natural asset composition

Grassland vegetation inventory

Asset Composition

Asset composition should be analyzed in terms of amount and proportional
representation of natural and anthropogenic assets.

Natural Asset Connectivity

Analyzing natural asset connectivity involves examining patch size distribution (native
prairie and forest assets), contagion of natural assets and linear disturbance density
(km/km2).

Patch Size of Natural Assets

It is suggested that contiguous patches of natural vegetation be classified into the
following size classes:

• >10,000 ha (nationally important)

• 1000 to 10,000 ha (regionally important)

• 250 to 1000 ha

• 50 to 250 ha

• 2 to 10 ha

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 88

Contagion of Natural Assets

Measures of contagion should be assessed for natural regions and sub-regions. The
measure is not useful at the regional level.

Linear Disturbance Density

Linear disturbance density can be calculated in southern Alberta by converting map files
to raster and reporting on mean km/km2 within a 1 km2-moving window. This can be
reported by natural sub-regions or other relevant planning units.

Natural Asset Configuration

An important aspect of configuration that should be examined includes the amount of
edge (anthropogenic edge length and density (km/km2) should be calculated in addition
to the number of natural asset types within a 1 km2 moving window.

Natural Asset Configuration - Field Surveys

Field surveys need to be conducted to support regional dataset evaluations and provide
fine-scale data for priority sites. A useful field study that should be continued and
expanded is the Grassland Vegetation Inventory. These inventories must be kept
current in order to feed back into the regional dataset evaluations.

5.2 Medium Priority

Gap #5: There is a need for public review and comment with regard to the
_ importance of ecosystem goods and services in southern Alberta. _

Background

The results of this ecosystem services assessment represent the professional opinion of
the project team and should be considered preliminary. The intent of this assessment is
to prepare a baseline evaluation and approach that can be taken to wider public
consultation.

Proposed Solution

While it is recognized that there are risks with taking information to the public too early in
the process, the opposite is also true. It is suggested that Alberta Environment consider
the results of this EGS Assessment as an initial platform from which to engage a much
wider audience. In doing so, this will create buy-in and will also be able to elicit
responses that verify the professional opinion reflected herein. Alternately, arguments
may be sufficient to overturn some of the assumptions that were made by the project
team resulting in a more accurate and rigorous assessment. Finally, future work will
also need to consider how to engage a broad stakeholder group at various geographic
scales over issues where consensus may not be possible. The results of public review
and comment should lead to policy development with respect to protection of ecosystem
services.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 89

Gap #6: There is a need for standardization of methodologies for the assessment
_ of ecosystem goods and services of ecosystem goods and services.

Background

An underlying concern with a project or initiative such as this is the inability to compare
methodology and results with other projects. As ecosystem goods and services
assessment is still in its infancy, especially in the practical arena where little has been
done, the ability to compare and contrast work is extremely limited. While there is ample
work being done at the academic level with respect to EGS and its importance, the
Ecosystem Services Project in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria, Australia
provides the lone case study for our work in southern Alberta. The Ecosystem Services
Project has a significantly larger budget and is a much larger initiative, now underway for
many years. As a result, a set of standardized valuation methods/framework should be
produced so that the EGS Assessment work in southern Alberta can be compared with
similar areas.

Proposed Solution

There are a number of initiatives underway to standardize approaches to EGS
assessments. The World Resources Institute (WRI) is presently drafting a manual to
assist EGS practitioners. IUCN has an online database of some 200 EGS case studies.
Alberta Environment may want to consider harmonizing further evaluation of ecosystem
goods and services in conjunction with these standard approaches. Additional initiatives,
such as the EcoValue Project at the Gund School of Ecological Economics at the
University of Vermont that provide an interactive decision support system for assessing
and reporting the economic value of ecosystem goods and services in a geographic
context are also useful opportunities for exchange of EGS assessment methodologies.

5.3 Low Priority

Gap #7: There is a need to coordinate the valuation of ecosystem goods and
services with tools and instruments used in policy development to
_ protect them. _ _

Background

The EGS Assessment focused on attempting to understand the relationships between
ecosystem services, assets and goods produced in southern Alberta. There was no
attempt made at this stage to consider the value of the services, assets and goods.
Other EGS assessments in Alberta are underway to identify tools, policy incentives and
other mechanisms to assist in the protection of ecosystem services, goods and assets.

Proposed Solution

It is important that EGS initiatives in Alberta encompass a dual approach. The first is to
develop a technical understanding of the interrelationships between ecosystem services,
assets and goods and assess their value and importance. The second is the application
of policy tools and instruments to develop policies related to EGS and their protection.
Together these two approaches should be linked to broader policy development and
decision making processes currently underway for land use planning and resource
allocation in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 91

6.0 Summary of Major Findings

The results of this assessment of the importance of ecosystem goods and services in
southern Alberta should be considered as preliminary in nature. The findings await
further verification and discussion with key stakeholders and the public. The following
section presents a summary of key findings of the EGS Assessment:

• A total of 20 ecosystem services were assessed as to their importance in
producing goods or maintaining natural assets in southern Alberta. The
ecosystem services were categorized into four types of services: regulating,
supporting, provisioning and cultural and aesthetic. The latter group of services
are considered important in that they capture a wide variety of non-market
benefits associated with the conservation of natural assets.

• A conceptual model of linkages between ecosystem services, assets and goods
was developed. The model shows that strong linkages exist between natural
assets (native prairie, forest and aquatic assets) and regulating and supporting
services. Natural assets, agricultural assets and other anthropogenic assets are
also important in regard to provisioning services. Provisioning services (water,
food, raw materials and genetic resources) are also important inputs to the
production of goods in the primary and secondary sectors of the southern Alberta
economy. Cultural services are most important to the production of goods in the
tertiary sector of the economy and producing cultural and aesthetic goods.

• The Project team assessed the 20 ecosystem services for their relative
importance in southern Alberta using four criteria which include importance to the
production of goods, importance to the maintenance of assets, importance at the
margin, and manageability. An overall ranking of the importance of ecosystem
services in southern Alberta was determined. The results of this assessment
conclude that the ecosystem services of greatest overall importance (in rank
order) to southern Alberta are nutrient cycling, disturbance regulation, erosion
control and sediment retention, water supply, biological control, and climate
regulation.

• As noted, the overall ranking of ecosystem services used a series of intermediate
assessments (importance of the service to the production of goods, importance
of the service to the maintenance of assets, relative importance at the margin,
and manageability) that were averaged to provide a score out of 3.0 and then
ranked accordingly. The most important services (in rank order) to the
production of goods include climate regulation, water supply, primary production,
disturbance regulation, water regulation, and nutrient cycling. Ecosystem
services of greatest importance to the maintenance of assets include erosion
control and sediment retention, waste treatment, disturbance regulation, climate
regulation, nutrient cycling, and biological control. Ecosystem services of
greatest importance at the margin were determined to be disturbance regulation,
biological control, climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and waste treatment.
Finally, ecosystem services assessed as most manageable include science and
education, aesthetics, recreation, erosion control and sediment retention, and
raw materials.

• Independent of the overall ranking of ecosystem services, current understanding
and knowledge of ecosystem services in the context of southern Alberta were

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 92

considered. The primary purpose of the assessment is to identify gaps in
knowledge and target further EGS initiatives. Knowledge of the function and
process of ecosystem services was highest for recreation, habitat/refugia, water
regulation, erosion control and sediment retention, raw materials, food production
and primary production. Conversely, knowledge of genetic resources, pollination
and gas regulation is least understood. This part of the assessment will require
revision in consultation with resource managers and EGS specialists.

• A series of linked spreadsheet models was developed to demonstrate that
changes to the amount and distribution of natural assets affect the type, quantity,
and quality of ecosystem services. In turn, the sustainability of goods produced
by ecosystem services is affected. The existing conditions and two hypothetical
scenarios (Agro-industrial and Naturalized) were analyzed to assess the impact
of expanding anthropogenic assets on the capacity of natural assets to provide
ecosystem services to either produce goods or maintain assets. Under the Agro¬
industrial Scenario there is a decrease in native prairie assets, forest assets,
tame pasture, and a corresponding increase in cereal, oilseeds and legumes,
specialty crops, forage crops, and other anthropogenic assets. In the Naturalized
Scenario there are decreases in agricultural assets, roads and rails,
rural/agricultural residential, cities, well sites, pipelines, feedlots, recreation sites,
industrial sites, canals and increases in native prairie and forest assets.

• The impact of expanding anthropogenic assets on the provision of services under
both scenarios was analyzed. In the Agro-industrial Scenario, anthropogenic
assets are increased at the expense of natural assets; in response, the index of
service provision in southern Alberta decreases to varying degrees for all
ecosystem services. The greatest decreases are seen for the services of
biological control, habitat/refugia, genetic resources and spiritual and traditional
use. Habitat/refugia also become a net loss under this scenario. Services
related to primary production and food production also decrease in this scenario.
While agriculture expands, the very ecosystem services that it depends on are
reduced (maintenance of soil fertility, nutrient cycling etc). While goods may
actually increase under this scenario, it is at the expense of long-term supporting
ecosystem services, which must be supplemented by external inputs such as fuel
and fertilizer.

• Under the Naturalized Scenario, increasing the proportion of native assets on the
landscape causes the services of biological control, habitat/refugia, genetic
resources and spiritual and traditional use to show the highest corresponding
increases in service provision. The smallest increases are shown with respect to
waste treatment and raw materials; two services, primary production and food
production actually show a slight decrease under this scenario. This effect can
be attributed to the large-scale conversion of arable agriculture, forage and tame
pasture back into native prairie assets.

• The impact of expansion of anthropogenic assets on the capacity of ecosystem
services to produce goods under the Agro-industrial Scenario showed increases
in crop production, agricultural processing, oil and gas refining, and increases in
the tertiary service sector (manufacturing, construction, transportation,
government etc.). Biodiversity, aesthetic and cultural goods, future options and
non-market recreational opportunities all decreased under the Agro-industrial
scenario. Under the Naturalized scenario, crop production, agricultural
production, oil and gas refining and some service goods (construction,

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 93

transportation, government) decreased while livestock production, subsistence,
tourism, biodiversity, aesthetic and cultural goods, future options and non-market
recreational opportunities increased.

• Natural asset conditions can be described in terms of composition, connectivity
and configuration. All influence different ecosystem functions, processes and
services at varying scales. Changes in the condition of natural assets on both
the trend and magnitude with regard to the provision of the service were
assessed. With the exception of gas regulation and climate regulation (where
the effects of change in asset condition are difficult to evaluate), the provision of
all other ecosystem services in southern Alberta is predicted to decline in the
long term. The exceptions to this trend are food production and the production of
raw materials which are expected to increase in the short to mid-term but decline
in the long term. The magnitude of this effect is predicted to be highest for the
services of disturbance regulation, water regulation, biological control, pollination,
habitat/refugia, water supply, food production, raw materials, genetic resources,
aesthetic, spiritual/traditional and recreation. Further modelling with real data
and importance coefficients is required to verify these predictions.

• A gap analysis was completed to identify further information needs and future
directions for ecosystem goods and services assessment in southern Alberta.
Key themes emerging from the gap analysis include: 1) the need for
standardized methodologies and approaches to EGS assessment; 2) the need to
incorporate economic valuation of market and non-market benefits associated
with EGS; 3) the need to review the results of the assessment in a public forum;

4) the need to couple the results of the EGS assessment with spatially explicit
modelling and planning to address the issues of what and where to develop; and,

5) the need to link technical EGS assessments and policy tools and instruments
for EGS protection into the broader policy development and decision making
framework for land-use planning and resource allocation in southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 94

Page 95

7.0 References

In addition to the references cited in the text, the Phase 1 EGS report contains over 200

references in an annotated bibliography.

Anielski, M. (2001). The Alberta genuine progress indicator (GPI) accounting project
charting a sustainable future for all Canadians. Ottawa: The National Round
Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Anielski, M., & Wilson, S. (2003). Counting Canada’s natural capital: assessing the real
value of Canada’s boreal ecosystems. Ottawa: The Canadian Boreal Initiative
and The Pembina Institute.

Anielski, M., & Wilson, S. (2007). The real wealth of the Mackenzie region: Assessing
the natural capital values of a northern boreal ecosystem. Ottawa: Canadian
Boreal Initiative.

Barry, C.R., Rooney, T.P., Ventura, S.l. and D.M. Waller. 2001. Evaluation of
biodiversity value based on wildness: A study of the western Northwoods, Upper
Great Lakes, USA. Natural Areas Journal 21(3): 229-242.

Clark, C. (1940). The Conditions of Economic Progress. London: Macmillan.

Cork, S., Proctor, W., Shelton, D., Abel, N., & Binning, C. (2002). The ecosystem
services project: Exploring the importance of ecosystems to people. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 3(2), 143-146.

Costanza, R., d' Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997).
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387,
253-260.

Daily, G. (Ed.). (1997). Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Washington: Island Press.

de Groot, R., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological
Economics^'l), 393-408.

Ecosystem Services Project. (2003). Natural values: Exploring options for enhancing
ecosystem services in the Goulburn Broken catchment: CSIRO Sustainable
Ecosystems.

Ecosystem Services Project, (n.d.). Natural Assets: An inventory of ecosystem goods
and services in the Goulburn Broken catchment: CSIRO Sustainable
Ecosystems.

Fahrig, L. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 487-515.

Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D., Erickson, J., Gross, K., Grover, M., et al. (2006).
Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience, 56(2),
121-133.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 96

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Fisher, A. G. B. (1939). Production, primary, secondary and tertiary. The Economic
Record, June, 24-38.

Global Training Inc. (2004). Southern Alberta Landscapes. Social/Economic Aspects.
Prepared for Alberta Environment. Calgary.

Havstad, K., Peters, D., Skaggs, R., Brown, J., Bestelmeyer, B., Fredrickson, E., et al.
(2007). Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States
Ecological Economics, (in press), 9.

Integrated Environments (2006) Ltd. (2007). Southern Alberta Landscapes Ecosystem
Goods and Services Assessment. Phase 1 Report: Key Actors and Initiatives.
Calgary: Prepared for Alberta Environment by Integrated Environments (2006)
Ltd. and 02 Design & Planning Inc.

IUCN, UNEP, & WWF. (1991). Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living.
Gland, Switzerland.

Kennedy, C., Wilkinson, J. and J. Balch. 2003. Conservation Thresholds for Land Use
Planners. Environmental Law Institute. Washington D.C.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Living beyond our means: Natural assets and
human well-being.

Olewiler, N. (2004). The value of natural capital in settled areas of Canada: Ducks
Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Potvin, M.J., Drummer, T.D., Vucetich, J.A., Beyer, D.E., Peterson, R.O. and J.H.
Hammill. 2005. Monitoring and habitat analysis for wolves in upper Michigan.
Journal of Wildlife Management 69 (4): 1660-1669.

Shelton, D., Cork, S., Binning, C., Parry, R., Hairsine, P., Vertessy, R., et al. (2001).
Application of an ecosystem services inventory approach to the Goulburn Broken
Catchment. Paper presented at the Third Australian Stream Management
Conference.

World Resources Institute, (n.d). What is the World Resources Institute doing to address
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment findings? World Resources Institute.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 97

8.0 Glossary of Key Terms

Acronym or Term Definition

Acronym or Term

Definition

AENV

ALCES®

Alberta Environment

A landscape cumulative effect simulator tool developed in
Alberta to help decision-makers and stakeholders explore
how land use practices interact with natural processes to
change the landscape.

Anthropogenic Assets

Man-made assets that produce a wide variety of goods for
human benefit.

Assets

Something useful or valuable.

Contagion

The degree to which assets are clumped or dispersed

Commons

across a given area.

Or equivalently a common property resource or public
good; a resource that provides services that must be
shared by some community of individuals or the public.

Cultural services

Are the non-material benefits people obtain from
ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive
development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic
experiences.

Contiguity

A measure of the degree of wholeness within a region or of
the degree to which polygons are in contact with one
another

Discount rate

Used to allow comparisons of benefits and costs
experienced at different points in time. It allows conversion
of future values into their present-day equivalent.

Ecosystem functions

Refer variously to the habitat, biological or system
properties or processes of ecosystems.

Ecosystem goods

Tangible and intangible benefits to human beings derived
from ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services

Flow from natural assets (soil, water systems, plants,
animals, other living organisms and the atmosphere) to
provide us with financial, ecological and cultural benefits. If
natural assets are not maintained the benefits from
ecosystem services decline. Conversely, if we maintain our
natural assets and use them more effectively, we will
benefit from greater returns.

EGS

Ecosystem goods and services.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 98

Acronym or Term

Definition

Externality

Occurs when the actions of one individual impose costs or
benefits on another individual, who has not agreed to
receive those costs or benefits.

Genuine Progress

Indicators (GPI)

As a unique sustainability accounting standard, “the GPI
Accounts provide concrete, best evidence of the current
and historical condition or well-being of our natural, social,
human and economic-manufactured capital or assets, as
well as identifying emerging liabilities and the distribution of
ownership of capital assets in society (i.e. owners’ equity,
wealth and income distribution) (Anielski, 2001, p. 1).

Goods

Are all things produced in the southern Alberta Landscape
that are of value to humans. In this study we emphasise the
role of natural assets in the production of goods. However,
it is important to also recognise the role of manufactured
capital, technology, labour and social institutions in the
production of goods.

Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)

The market value of all final goods and services produced
within a given area (usually a country) in a given period of
time. It is also considered the sum of value added at every
stage of production of all final goods and services produced
within a country in a given period of time.

Importance at the margin

The impact of a small change in a service on the production
of a good or the maintenance of natural assets. Example,
will a small change in pollination significantly affect crop
yields? This criterion was used to assess “input to
production” and “maintaining natural assets”.

Input to production

Assessment of ecosystem services in this role was based
on a combined weighting of the value of goods associated
with each land-use/industry and the importance of the
ecosystem service in producing those goods. Input to
production was assessed using the overall importance,
importance at the margin and manageability.

Maintaining natural assets

Assessment of ecosystem services in this role was based
on the impact of each land-use/industry on the capacity of
natural assets to continue to provide ecosystem services.

Manageability

The capacity to manage the land-use/industry to ensure the
ongoing delivery of the service (noting that a low ranking
may imply a high priority for further effort). This criteria was
used to assess “input to production” and “maintaining
natural assets”.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 99

Acronym or Term

Definition

Market failure

When the market alone does not result in an efficient
provision of some good or service. The provision of a
service is said to be efficient when it is impossible to make
any individual better off without making someone else
worse off. Market failures are typically caused by the
presence of externalities.

MES

Market for Ecosystem Service.

Natural assets

Refer to the stock of natural resources from which many
ecosystem services and goods are produced.

Natural capital

As opposed to human or manufactured capital, natural
capital is the stock of society’s environmental assets.

Non-extractive services

Services that do not involve removing biomass from the
ecosystem providing the service, for example, water
purification services.

Normative economics

Provides recommendations to policy-makers concerning
what should happen in some situation and how best to
intervene to ensure that it does. By comparison, positive or
descriptive economics is the more objective study of what
does happen.

Overall importance/ impact

A criterion used to assess the overall importance of the
service in relation to the production of goods; and also to
assess the impact of the land-use/industry on ecosystem
service’s capacity to maintain natural assets. See also
“input to production” and “maintaining natural assets”.

PES

Primary sector

Payment for Ecosystem Services.

Generally involves the changing process of natural
resources into primary products. Most products from this
sector are considered raw materials for other industries.

Production function (PF)

Is an approach that estimates the contribution an
ecosystem service makes to the production of a marketed/
marketable service such as drinking water.

Provisioning services

Are the products people obtain from ecosystems, such as
food, fuel, fiber, fresh water, and genetic resources.

Regulating services

Are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of
ecosystem processes, including air quality maintenance,
climate regulation, erosion control, regulation of human
diseases, and water purification.

SAL Project

Southern Alberta Landscape Project.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 100

Acronym or Term

Definition

Secondary sector (or
manufacturing sector)

Includes those economic sectors that create a finished,
usable product: manufacturing and construction. This sector
of industry generally takes the output of the primary sector
and manufactures finished goods or products to a point
where they are suitable for use by other businesses, for
export, or sale to domestic consumers.

Stochastic

A stochastic process is one whose behaviour is non-
deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next
state.

Supporting services

Are those services that are necessary for the production of
all other ecosystem services, such as primary production,
production of oxygen, and soil formation.

Tertiary sector (or service
sector)

This sector includes non-physical products and services
such as customer care. The tertiary sector is often involved
in distribution logistics and retailing, and industries in this
sector do not effect any major changes in physical goods
before reselling them to the customer.

Valuation

The process of estimating the willingness of individuals to
sacrifice or pay to achieve some goal or outcome.

Willingness-to-pay (or
ability to pay)

Is the foundation of the economic theory of value. The idea
is, if something is worth having, then it is worth paying for
and can be applied to environmental resources like water
quality and natural resources like trees. The key
assumption is that environmental values are anthropogenic.
Whatever people think the environment is worth is what it is
worth. Economic methods can be used to attach estimates
of willingness to pay to changes in the level of
environmental quality and natural resource use.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 101

9.0 Appendices

Appendix 9-1: List of Ecosystem Services, Natural and Anthropogenic Assets and
Goods Considered as Part of the EGS Assessment

Ecosystem

Services

Natural and Anthropogenic Assets

Goods

Regulating

Native Prairie

Primary Sector of Industry

Gas regulation

Needle and thread dry mixed grass

Agriculture-crop/vegetable

Climate regulation

Northern wheat dry mixed grass

Agriculture-livestock

Disturbance regulation

Needle and thread sand grass dry mixed grass

Oil and gas

Water regulation

Mixed grass

Forestry

Erosion control and

Fescue grasslands

Mining i

sediment retention

Rocky mountain and parkland fescue

Subsistence

Waste treatment

Prairie treed and riparian cottonwood complex

Biological control

Prairie shrub

Secondary Sector of Industry

Badlands and thin breaks

Agriculture processing

Supporting

Oil and gas refining

Soil formation

Forest

Other manufacturing

Primary production

Forest shrub

Nutrient cycling

Hardwood forest

Tertiary Sector of Industry

Pollination

Mixedwood forest

Construction

Habitat/Refugia

Spruce and fir forest

Transportation and utilities

Pine forest

Trade (wholesale/retail)

Provisioning

Health and education

Water supply

Agricultural

Tourist services

Food production

Cereal crops

Government and non profit

Raw materials

Oilseeds and Legumes

Other services

Genetic resources

Specialty crops

Forage crops

Cultural and Aesthetic

Cultural and aesthetic

Tame pasture

Biodiversity

Aesthetic

Aesthetic

Spiritual and traditional

Aquatic

Cultural

Science and education

Lentic water (still)

Future options

Recreation

Lotic water (flowing)

Prairie wetlands

Forest wetlands

Geologic

Bare soil and rock

Ice

Other Anthropogenic

Roads/rails

Rural residential/Ag residential

City/town

Well sites

Pipelines/transmission lines/seismic lines

Feedlots

Recreation-campgrounds and ski hills

Mines/pits

Industrial sites

Reservoirs

Canals

Non-market recreational

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 102

Appendix 9-2 Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Assets

Ecosystem
Functions and
Services

Description

Examples

Needle & thread |

Regulating Services

L

Gas regulation

Regulation of the chemical composition of the

C02/02 balance, ozone for UVB protection

Climate regulation

Regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and

other climate processes at alofaal or local levels

GHG regulation, DMS (ocean gas) production

affectino cloud formation

Disturbance

Dampening of environmental fluctuations and

disturbance

Storm protection, flood control, drought recovery

Water regulation

Role of land cover in regulating runoff and river

Drainage and natural irrigation, medium for transport

Erosion control and

Retention of soil within an ecosystem

Prevention of soil loss by wind or runoff; storage of
silt in lakes or wetlands; protecting water quality

Waste treatment

Recovery of mobile nutrients, and removal or

breakdown of excess nutrients and compounds

Biodegradation, anaerobic digestion, detoxification,

dillution, protection of water quality

_

Biological control

Regulation of pest populations and disease

Preditor control of prey species, reduction of

herbivory by animals

Supportive services

_

Soil formation

Soil formation process

Weathering of rock and the accumulation of organic

material

Nutrient cycling

Storage, internal cycling, processing and acquisition

of nutrients

Nitrogen fixation, N, P and other elemental or

nutrient cvcles

Pollination

Movement of floral pollinators

Provisioning of pollinators for the reproduction of

plant populations.

Habitat/Refugia

Habitat for resident and transient populations

Nurseries, habitat for migratory or resident species

Provisioning

services

Water supply

Storage and retention of water by watersheds
(includes surface and subsurface)

iProvisioning, storage and retention of water by
watersheds, reservoirs, and aquifers

Food production

That portion of gross primary production extractable

as food

Production of crops, fish, fodder, game, nuts, fruits.

Raw materials

Natural resource production

Production of lumber, fuels, and geological materials
(aggregates, minerals)

Genetic resources

Sources of unique biological materials and products

Modicine, genes for resistance to crop pests,
horticultural varieties of plants

Cultural Services

r

Aesthetic

Sensory enjoyment of functioning ecological systems

Artistic, photography, enjoyment.

r

Spiritual and

traditional use

Spiritual and historic information

Traditional uses for aborigional and non-aboriginal
populations; spiritual sites and religious activities

Science and

education

Use of natural areas for scientific and educational

enhancement

Scientific research, science class field trips,
increasing public knowledge of natural systems

Recreation

Opportunities for rest, refreshment, and recreation

Eco-tourism, sport fishing, hiking, boating, climbing.

c

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 103

Appendix 9-3: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Maintenance of Assets

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 104

Appendix 9-4: Importance of Ecosystem Services to the Production of Goods

Gas regulation

Climate regulation

Disturbance regulation

Water regulation

Erosion control and sedime

Waste treatment

Biological control

Primary production

Nutrient cycling

Regulating Services

Regulation of the chemical composition of the

atmosphere and oceans

Regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and
other climate processes at global or local levels

Dampening of environmental fluctuations and
disturbance

Role of land cover in regulating runoff and river
discharge

Retention of soil within an ecosystem

Recovery of mobile nutrients, and removal or
breakdown of excess nutrients and compounds

Regulation of pest populations and disease

Supporting Services

Soil formation process

Habitat/Refugia

Provisioning Services

Water supply

Food production

Genetic resources

Cultural Services

Spiritual and traditional i

Science and education

Description

Production of organic compounds from C02,
principally through the process of photosynthesis.

Storage, internal cycling, processing and
acguisition of nutrients

Movement of floral pollinators

Habitat for resident and transient populations

Storage and retention of water by watersheds
(includes surface and subsurface)

That portion of gross primary production extractable
as food

Natural resource production

Sources of unique biological
products

Sensory enjoyment of functioning ecological
systems

Spiritual and historic information

Use of natural areas for scientific and educational
enhancement

Opportunities for rest, refreshment, and recreation

Of Low Importance <

Not Applicable (1)

Of Moderate Importance

1B1

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 106

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 107

B: Importance of

C: Importance of

D: Importance of

E: Ability to manage

ecosystem service

ecosystem service

ecosystem service

asset to provide

A: Assets

to the production of

to the maintenance
of assets

at the margin

ecosystem services

Appendix 9-7: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services -

Overall ranking

G: Knowledge of
ecosystem services

! !

H: Explanatory notes

Gas Regulation

Page 108

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 109

d: Importance ui o. impuiianuo oi
ecosystem service ecosystem servici
to the production of to the maintenanc
goods of assets

Needle & thread drymixed grass

Northern wheat drymixed grass

Needle & thread sand grass - drymixed grass

Fescue grasslands

Rocky mountain & parkland fescue

Prairie treed & riparian cottonwood

Prairie shrub

Badlands & thin breaks

Mixed wood forest

Oilseeds and legumes

Average Importance (1-3)

E: Ability to manage
asset to provide
ecosystem services

F: Overall ranking

G: Knowledge of
ecosystem services

H: Explanatory notes

C: (all nows) Importance of this service was ranked as high for most biotic and some anthropogenic assets in this sheet because
extreme weather events.

| of the potential impact of |

E: (all rows) A relatively small change in the frequency of occurrence of extreme weather (hail storms, tornados) could have a large impact on the biotic and 1

anthropogenic assets on this sheet

E: Higher because of the interdepencence between riparian cottonwoods and the flood regime.

C: This

; asset type was seen as more resilient than others.

C: Extreme weather was deemed to impact rivers and streams more than I;

C: Sensitivity of the built environment to extreme weather events (hail, tornados, etc) and resulting financial impact.

Importance Values

_

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

u y y y y y > y » y » y y y > y y y y U y y y y • y y y y y y y y y y l J y y y y y y y

Needle & thread dry mixed grass

Northern wheat dry mixed grass

Needle & thread sand grass - dry mixed grass

Mixed grass

Fescue grasslands

Rocky mountain & parkland fescue

Prairie treed & riparian cottonwood

Prairie shrub

Badlands & thin breaks

Forest shrub

Hardwood forest

Mixed wood forest

Spruce & fir forest

Pine forest

Cereal crops

Oilseeds and legumes

Forage crops

Tame pasture

Lotic water (flowing)

Lentic water (still)

Forest wetlands |

Prairie wetlands

Bare soil & rock |

,ce

Roads & rails

Rural/Ag residential

Cities & towns

Wellsites

Pipelines, transmission & seismic lines

Feedlots

Recreation-campgrounds and ski hills

Mnes & pits

Industrial sites

Reservoirs

Average Importance (1-3) I.75

Alberta Environment

Page 110

Appendix 9-10: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Water Regulation

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 1 1 1

Appendix 9-11: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Erosion Control and Sediment Retention

ecosystem service ecosystem service
goods of assets

Needle & thread drymixed grass
Northern wheat drymixed grass

d sand grass - drymixed grass

Rockymountaln & parkland fescue
Prairie treed & riparian cottonwood

Hardwood forest

Mixed wood forest

Oilseeds and legumes

Lentic water (still)

Forest wetlands

Rural/Ag residential

Pipelines, transmission & s

Recreation-campgrounds a

Specialty crops

Forage crops

C: (all rows) Importance of this service was ranked as high for most biotic assets in this sheet because of the potential effect of erosion c

D: (all rows) A small change in this service was not seen to have a large impact on most assets.

D: Plants in the riparian zone are particularly vulnerable to erosion.

E: The manageability of most forest and crop assets was deemed high when using modem management practices.

E: The manageability of these anthropogenic assets was deemed high (hardened surfaces, rip-rap, etc)

E: the manageability of these anthropogenic assets was deemed high (hardened surfaces, rip-rap, etc)

E: Reservoirs can be used to help manage erosion via flood control

Importance Values

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Alberta Environment

Page 112

Appendix 9-12: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Waste Treatment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 113

Appendix 9-13: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Biological Control

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 114

Appendix 9-14: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Soil Formation

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 115

Appendix 9-15: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Nutrient Cycling

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 116

Appendix 9-16: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Pollination

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 117

B: Importance of C: Importance of D: Importance of E: Ability
ecosystem service ecosystem sendee ecosystem sendee asset I
to the production of to the maintenance at the margin ecosyste

Appendix 9-17: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Habitat/Refugia

cwnanage F: Overall ranking G: Knowledge of

provide ecosystem sendees | H: Explanatory notes

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 118

Appendix 9-18: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Primary Production

Average Importance (1-3)

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 119

Appendix 9-19: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services

Water Supply

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 120

Appendix 9-20: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Food Production

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 121

Appendix 9-21 : Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services

Raw Materials

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 122

Appendix 9-22: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Genetic Resources

A: Assets

B: Importance of
ecosystem service
to the production of

C: Importance of
ecosystem service
to the maintenance

D: Importance of
ecosystem sendee
at the margin

E: Ability to manage
asset to prowde
ecosystem seraces

F: Overall ranking

G: Knowledge of
ecosystem services

H: Explanatory notes ;

i

Needle & thread drymixed grass

Northern wheat drymixed grass

B, C: (all rows) Genetic resources in the context of this project were taken to be the human use and manipulation of genetic maierial (e.g. genetically
modified organisms for food). Therefore only goods and assets that are manipulated in this way are accounted for.

Needle & thread sand grass - drymixed grass

Mixed grass

E: (all rows) These assets may prowde genetic materials for "management" by humans, but are not typically maintained (columfi D) by the service.

Fescue grasslands

Rocky mountain & parkland fescue

Prairie treed & riparian cottonwood

Prairie shrub

Badlands & thin breaks

Forest shrub

Hardwood forest

Mixed wood forest

Spruce & fir forest

Pine forest

Oliseeds and legumes

Prairie wetlands

Rural/Ag residential

. transmission & seismic li

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 123

Appendix 9-23: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Aesthetic

i

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 124

Appendix 9-24: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Spiritual and Cultural Use

Importance of D: Importance of E: Ability to manage
ecosystem service ecosystem service ecosystem service asset to provide
to the production of to the maintenance at the margin ecosystem services
goods of assets

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 125

Appendix 9-25: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Science and Education

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 131

Appendix 9-31: Knowledge of the Function and Process of Ecosystem Services Relative to Assets

Note: Services that did not apply to ;
given asset were marked as not
applicable. If the knowledge of a
function on an asset was ranked as
his was meant to imply that mi
research into the interaction would
benefit Southern Alberta.

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 126

Appendix 9-26: Relative Importance of Ecosystem Services - Recreation

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 127

Appendix 9-27: Goods Provided by Assets

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 128

Alberta Environment

Appendix 9-28: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the

Not Applicable (0)

Of Low Importance (1)

Of Moderate Importance

P>

Of High Importance (3)

Margin Relative to the Production of Goods

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Page 129

Appendix 9-29: Importance of Ecosystem Services at the Margin Relative to the Maintenance of Assets

Regulating Services

Gas regulation

Climate regulation

Disturbance regulation

Erosion control and
sediment retention

Waste treatment

Biological control

Ecosystem functions
and services

Regulation of the chemical composition of the

atmosphere and oceans

Regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and

other climate processes at global or local levels

Dampening of environmental fluctuations and
disturbance

Stabilization of hydrological flows

Retention of soil within an ecosystem

Recovery of mobile nutrients, and removal or
breakdown of excess nutrients and compounds

Regulation of pest populations and disease

Supporting Services

Soil formation process

Primary production

Habitat/Refugia

Provisioning Services

Food production

Raw materials

Genetic resources

Cultural Services

Spiritual and traditional use
Science and education

Description

Production of organic compounds from C02,
principally through the process of photosynthesis.

Storage, internal cycling, processing and
acquisition of nutrients

Movement of floral pollinators

Habitat for resident and transient populations

Storage and retention of water by watersheds
(includes surface and subsurface)

That portion of gross primary production extractable

as food

Natural resource production

Sources of unique biological materials and

products

Sensory enjoyment of functioning ecological

systems

Spiritual and historic information

Use of natural areas for scientific and educational

enhancement

Opportunities for rest, refreshment, and recreation

Alberta Environment

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment

Low Ability to Manage or
Not Applicable (1)

Moderate Ability to

Manage (2)

High Ability to Manage

(3)

Aiberta Environment

Page 1 30

Ecosystem Goods and Services Assessment