The EBM-DPSER conceptual model: integrating ecosystem services into the DPSIR framework

There is a pressing need to integrate biophysical and human dimensions science to better inform holistic ecosystem management supporting the transition from single species or single-sector management to multi-sector ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem-based management should focus upon ecosystem services, since they reflect societal goals, values, desires, and benefits. The inclusion of ecosystem services into holistic management strategies improves management by better capturing the diversity of positive and negative human-natural interactions and making explicit the benefits to society. To facilitate this inclusion, we propose a conceptual model that merges the broadly applied Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response (DPSIR) conceptual model with ecosystem services yielding a Driver, Pressure, State, Ecosystem service, and Response (EBM-DPSER) conceptual model. The impact module in traditional DPSIR models focuses attention upon negative anthropomorphic impacts on the ecosystem; by replacing impacts with ecosystem services the EBM-DPSER model incorporates not only negative, but also positive changes in the ecosystem. Responses occur as a result of changes in ecosystem services and include inter alia management actions directed at proactively altering human population or individual behavior and infrastructure to meet societal goals. The EBM-DPSER conceptual model was applied to the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas marine ecosystem as a case study to illustrate how it can inform management decisions. This case study captures our system-level understanding and results in a more holistic representation of ecosystem and human society interactions, thus improving our ability to identify trade-offs. The EBM-DPSER model should be a useful operational tool for implementing EBM, in that it fully integrates our knowledge of all ecosystem components while focusing management attention upon those aspects of the ecosystem most important to human society and does so within a framework already familiar to resource managers

The EBM-DPSER Conceptual Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework

There is a pressing need to integrate biophysical and human dimensions science to better inform holistic ecosystem management supporting the transition from single species or single-sector management to multi-sector ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem-based management should focus upon ecosystem services, since they reflect societal goals, values, desires, and benefits. The inclusion of ecosystem services into holistic management strategies improves management by better capturing the diversity of positive and negative human-natural interactions and making explicit the benefits to society. To facilitate this inclusion, we propose a conceptual model that merges the broadly applied Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response (DPSIR) conceptual model with ecosystem services yielding a Driver, Pressure, State, Ecosystem service, and Response (EBM-DPSER) conceptual model. The impact module in traditional DPSIR models focuses attention upon negative anthropomorphic impacts on the ecosystem; by replacing impacts with ecosystem services the EBM-DPSER model incorporates not only negative, but also positive changes in the ecosystem. Responses occur as a result of changes in ecosystem services and include inter alia management actions directed at proactively altering human population or individual behavior and infrastructure to meet societal goals. The EBM-DPSER conceptual model was applied to the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas marine ecosystem as a case study to illustrate how it can inform management decisions. This case study captures our system-level understanding and results in a more holistic representation of ecosystem and human society interactions, thus improving our ability to identify trade-offs. The EBM-DPSER model should be a useful operational tool for implementing EBM, in that it fully integrates our knowledge of all ecosystem components while focusing management attention upon those aspects of the ecosystem most important to human society and does so within a framework already familiar to resource managers

Bump evolution driven by the x-ray ablation Richtmyer-Meshkov effect in plastic inertial confinement fusion Ablators

Growth of hydrodynamic instabilities at the interfaces of inertial confinement fusion capsules (ICF) due to ablator and fuel non-uniformities are a primary concern for the ICF program. Recently, observed jetting and parasitic mix into the fuel were attributed to isolated defects on the outer surface of the capsule. Strategies for mitigation of these defects exist, however, they require reduced uncertainties in Equation of State (EOS) models prior to invoking them. In light of this, we have begun a campaign to measure the growth of isolated defects (bumps) due to x-ray ablation Richtmyer-Meshkov in plastic ablators to validate these models. Experiments used hohlraums with radiation temperatures near 70 eV driven by 15 beams from the Omega laser (Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester, NY), which sent a ∼1.25Mbar shock into a planar CH target placed over one laser entrance hole. Targets consisted of 2-D arrays of quasi-gaussian bumps (10 microns tall, 34 microns FWHM) deposited on the surface facing into the hohlraum. On-axis radiography with a saran (Cl Heα − 2.76keV) backlighter was used to measure bump evolution prior to shock breakout. Shock speed measurements were also performed to determine target conditions. Simulations using the LEOS 5310 and SESAME 7592 models required the simulated laser power be turned down to 80 and 88%, respectively to match observed shock speeds. Both LEOS 5310 and SESAME 7592 simulations agreed with measured bump areal densities out to 6 ns where ablative RM oscillations were observed in previous laser-driven experiments, but did not occur in the x-ray driven case. The QEOS model, conversely, over predicted shock speeds and under predicted areal density in the bump

Ecosystem services provided by the Florida Keys marine ecosystem.

<p>The last column identifies these services as benefits, final or intermediate ecosystem services according to Fisher et al. 2009 <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0070766#pone.0070766-Fisher1" target="_blank">[54]</a>.</p

The Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas EBM-DPSER model.

<p>The EBM-DPSER model for the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas marine ecosystem identifies the key components of each module within the CEM.</p

Three common definitions of ecosystem services show significant disparity.

<p>The first row shows that the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment applies the broadest definition of ecosystem services with more detailed definitions provided by Boyd and Banzhaf <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0070766#pone.0070766-Boyd1" target="_blank">[53]</a> and Fisher et al <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0070766#pone.0070766-Fisher1" target="_blank">[54]</a>. In our initial EBM-DPSER model development we employed the MEA (2005) definition, because this was the most familiar definiton to the majority of participants and our goal was to build consensus. However, when the EBM-DPSER model is applied to conduct trade-off analyses of management options the other definitions for ecosystem services may be more appropriate. To help facilitate the application of other ecosystem service definitions, the table shows the linkages between the definitions of <i>ecosystem attributes people care about</i>, ecosystem services, and benefits used in this study, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, and Fisher et al. 2009.</p

The DPSIR model.

<p>This is the DPSIR conceptual model that has conventionally been utilized for ecosystem management, assessment, indicator selection, and communication.</p

The EBM-DPSER model.

<p>The DPSIR model was modified by replacing the impacts module with ecosystem services facilitating a more complete representation of ecosystem interactions including those with human society and the associated feedbacks. Ecosystem services are at the top of the model, instead of drivers to focus attention upon the module that should be the focus of EBM decision-making.</p

The south Florida water column sub-model.

<p>The sub-model for the water column of south Florida depicts the linkage from pressures (yellow ovals) to the state attributes that we measure (red boxes) with yellow arrows. These state attributes that we measure are organized into indicators for the water column (black outlined boxes and black text). The other states that influence the water column are depicted in the blue boxes and arrows to the right. The state attributes that we measure produce <i>ecosystem attributes people care about</i> (green boxes and arrows), which can be directly translated to ecosystem services.</p