An ecosystem service approach to support integrated pond management: A case study using Bayesian belief networks - Highlighting opportunities and risks

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 145, Issue , 2014, Pages 79-87

  Landuyt, Dries ^a,b   Lemmens, Pieter ^c   D'hondt, Rob ^b   Broekx, Steven ^a   Liekens, Inge ^a   De Bie, Tom ^c   Declerck, Steven A J ^c,d   De Meester, Luc ^c   Goethals, Peter L M ^b  

^a FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY NIOO KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

BBN; Cost benefit analysis; Decision support system; Risk assessment; Scenario analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; ECOSYSTEMS; FARMS; FISH; LAKES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

BBN; CASE-STUDIES; COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FISH FARMING; MANAGEMENT PRACTISES; MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS; RISKS ASSESSMENTS; SCENARIOS ANALYSIS; SERVICE DELIVERY;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BIODIVERSITY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POND;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BAYESIAN BELIEF NETWORK; BELGIUM; CASE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CULTURAL VALUE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; NONHUMAN; PISCICULTURE; POND; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; WATER QUALITY; ECOLOGY; ECONOMICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PROCEDURES; RISK;

BELGIUM; FLANDERS;

BAYES THEOREM; BELGIUM; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PONDS; RISK;

EID: 84903905416     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.015     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Atkinson G., Mourato S. Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33:317-344.
2. Balvanera P., Pfisterer A.B., Buchmann N., He J.-S., Nakashizuka T., Raffaelli D., Schmid B. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:1146-1156.
3. Barton D.N., Saloranta T., Moe S.J., Eggestad H.O., Kuikka S. Bayesian belief networks as a meta-modelling tool in integrated river basin management-Pros and cons in evaluating nutrient abatement decisions under uncertainty in a Norwegian river basin. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66:91-104.
4. Bekefi E., Varadi L. Multifunctional pond fish farms in Hungary. Aquac. Int. 2007, 15:227-233.
5. Bianchini F., Hewage K. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: a lifecycle approach. Build. Environ. 2012, 58:152-162.
6. Broekx S., Liekens I., Peelaerts W., De Nocker L., Landuyt D., Staes J., Meire P., Schaafsma M., Van Reeth W., Van den Kerckhove O., Cerulus T. Aweb application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40:65-74.
7. Céréghino R., Biggs J., Oertli B., Declerck S. The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Pond Conserv. Europe 2010, 597:1-6.
8. Cools J., Broekx S., Vandenberghe V., Sels H., Meynaerts E., Vercaemst P., Seuntjens P., Van Hulle S., Wustenberghs H., Bauwens W., Huygens M. Coupling a hydrological water quality model and an economic optimization model to set up a cost-effective emission reduction scenario for nitrogen. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26:44-51.
9. Costanza R., d'Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
10. Daily G.C. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems 1997, Island Press, Washington, DC.
11. De Valck J., Vlaeminck P., Broekx S., Liekens I., Aertsens J., Chen W., Vranken L. Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125:65-75.
12. Downing J.A. Emerging global role of small lakes and ponds: little things mean a lot. Limnetica 2010, 1:9-24.
13. EPCN Developing the pond Manifesto. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Limnol. 2007, 43:221-232.
14. Gawne B., Price A., Koehn J.D., King A.J., Nielsen D.L., Meredith S., Beesley L., Vilizzi L. ABayesian belief network decision support tool for watering Wetlands to Maximise Native fish outcomes. Wetlands 2012, 32:277-287.
15. Gómez-Baggethun E., Ruiz-Pérez M. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35:613-628.
16. Gutiérrez-Estrada J.C., Pulido-Calvo I., de la Rosa I., Marchini B. Modeling inflow rates for the water exchange management in semi-intensive aquaculture ponds. Aquac. Eng. 2012, 48:19-30.
17. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update 2011, Tech. Rep., European Environment Agency, URL:. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/Issue8a.pdf.
18. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1595-1603.
19. IUCN Fishing for a Living: The Ecology and Economics of Fishponds in Central Europe 1997, IUCN, Gland.
20. Jensen F.V. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs 2001, Springer, New York.
21. Karmperis A.C., Sotirchos A., Aravossis K., Tatsiopoulos I.P. Waste management project's alternatives: a risk-based multi-criteria assessment (RBMCA) approach. Waste Manag. 2012, 32:194-212.
22. Kloskowski J. Differential effects of age-structured common carp (Cyprinus carpio) stocks on pond invertebrate communities: implications for recreational and wildlife use of farm ponds. Aquac. Int. 2011, 19:1151-1164.
23. Landuyt D., Broekx S., D'Hondt R., Engelen G., Aertsens J., Goethals P.L.M. Areview of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 46:1-11.
24. Lemmens P., Mergeay J., De Bie T., Van Wichelen J., De Meester L., Declerck S.A.J. How to maximally support local and regional biodiversity in applied conservation? Insights from pond management. PloS One 2013, 8:e72538.
25. Liekens I., Schaafsma M., De Nocker L., Broekx S., Staes J., Aertsens J., Brouwer R. Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:549-559.
26. Marcot B.G. Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models. Ecol. Model. 2012, 230:50-62.
27. Marcot B.G., Steventon J.D., Sutherland G.D., McCann R.K. Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36:3063-3074.
28. Martín-López B., Gómez-Baggethun E., García-Llorente M., Montes C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 37:220-228.
29. MEA Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 2005, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington DC.
30. Newton A.C., Hodder K., Cantarello E., Perrella L., Birch J.C., Robins J., Douglas S., Moody C., Cordingley J. Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. J.Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49:571-580.
31. Norsys Software Corporation Netica Application User's Guide 1998, Norsys Software Corporation, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
32. Oertli B., Joye D.A., Castella E., Juge R.l., Cambin D., Lachavanne J.-B. Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 104:59-70.
33. Pechar L. Impacts of long-term changes in fishery management on the trophic level water quality in Czech fish ponds. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2000, 7:23-31.
34. Pollino C.A., Woodberry O., Nicholson A., Korb K., Hart B.T. Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22:1140-1152.
35. Ramseyer L.J. Predicting whole-fish nitrogen content from fish wet weight using regression analysis. North Am. J. Aquacult. 2002, 64:195-204.
36. Scheffer M., Van Geest G.J., Zimmer K., Jeppesen E., Sondergaard M., Butler M.G., Hanson M.A., Declerck S., De Meester L. Small habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: second-order effects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds. Oikos 2006, 112:227-231.
37. Seitzinger S., Harrison J.A., Böhlke J.K., Bouwman A.F., Lowrance R., Peterson B., Tobias C., Drecht G.V. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16:2064-2090.
38. Soto D., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Brugère C., Angel D., Bailey C., Black K., Edwards P., Costa-Pierce B., Chopin T., Deudero S., Freeman S., Hambrey J., Hishamunda N., Knowler D., Silvert W., Marba N., Mathe S., Norambuena R., Simard F., Tett P., Troekk M., Wainberg A. Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures. Building an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture 2008, 15-35. FAO, Rome. D. Soto, J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, N. Hishamunda (Eds.).
39. Swift M.J., Izac A.M.N., van Noordwijk M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscape: are we asking the right questions?. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104:113-134.
40. Ticehurst J.L., Newham L.T.H., Rissik D., Letcher R.A., Jakeman A.J. ABayesian network approach for assessing the sustainability of coastal lakes in New South Wales, Australia. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22:1129-1139.
41. UNEP/CBD Available at:, (accessed 21.03.13). http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf.