BD assessment proposal for data/assessment visualization tool - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BD assessment proposal for data/assessment visualization tool Georg Martin & Kaire Torn Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu

Schematic presentation of BD assessment workspace Indicator data: Indicator data: Indicator data: Indicator Spatial Descriptor/ Ecosystem Indicator Spatial Descriptor/ Ecosystem Unit Criteria component BEAT 3.0 Biodiversity Indicator Spatial Descriptor/ Ecosystem Unit Criteria component Biodiversity Unit Criteria component assessment R-script, Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C1 Mammal Biodiversity Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C1 Mammal assessment Finland developed by Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C1 Mammal Finland assessment Output Input Finland NIVA (hosted by HELCOM?) Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C5 Bird Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C5 Bird Riga Indicator 1 Gulf of D1C5 Bird Riga Riga Indicator 2 Gulf of D4C1 Coastal fish Indicator 2 Gulf of D4C1 Coastal fish Finland Indicator 2 Gulf of D4C1 Coastal fish Finland Finland Input Input Visualisation tool Online visualisation of indicator results and biodiversity assessment result Developed and hosted by EMI

Example of output table: Beat

Why do we need visualization tool ? Both input and output of BEAT Tool cosists of large amount of data – difficult to grasp and handle. Visualization Tool simplifies the input and output information for further: • Analysis • Aggregation of information • Presentation • Reporting

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 Temporal coverage Spatial representability X H I H X 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 Temporal coverage Spatial representability X H I H X 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 1.1 Species distribution Temporal coverage Spatial representability Score: 1 Indicators: 2 X H I H X 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 1.2 Population size Temporal coverage Spatial representability Score: 0.8 Indicators: 3 X H I H X 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 Temporal coverage Spatial representability X H I H X 0.7 1.1 Species distribution Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence Score: 0.5 Indicators: 2 I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Presentration options • by indicator type – Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators • by spatial assessment unit – 4 levels • by criteria – 13 criteria • by ecosystem component – 5 levels

Presentration options • by indicator type – Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators • by spatial assessment unit – 4 levels • by criteria – 13 criteria • by ecosystem component – 5 levels

Presentration options • by indicator type – Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators • by spatial assessment unit – 4 levels • by criteria – 13 criteria • by ecosystem component – 5 levels

Spatial assesment units Assessment in 4 levels, visualization in 2 levels: 1) Baltic Sea 1. Baltic Sea 2) HELCOM sub-basins 1. Kattegat 2. Great Belt 3. The Sound 4. Kiel Bay 5. Bay of Mecklenburg 6. Arkona Basin 7. Bornholm Basin 8. Gdansk Basin 9. Eastern Gotland Basin 10. Western Gotland Basin 11. Gulf of Riga 12. Northern Baltic Proper 13. Gulf of Finland 14. Åland Sea 15. Bothnian Sea 16. The Quark 17. Bothnian Bay 3) HELCOM coastal areas and open sea (59 units) 4) National water types? (? units)

Presentration options • by indicator type – Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators • by spatial assessment unit – 4 levels • by criteria – 13 criteria • by ecosystem component – 5 levels

BD related MSFD criteria 1.1 Species distribution 1.2 Population size 1.3 Population condition 1.4 Habitata distribution 1.5 Habitat extent 1.6 Habitat condition 1.7 Ecosystem structure 3.2 Reproductive capacity of the stock 4.1 Productivity of key species 4.2 Proportion of selected species 4.3 Abundance /distribution of key species 6.1 Physical damage on substrate 6.2 Condition of benthic community

Presentration options • by indicator type – Core indicators – Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators – All indicators • by spatial assessment unit – 4 levels • by criteria – 13 criteria • by ecosystem component – 5 levels

Ecosystem components Assessment in 5 levels, visualization in 3 levels: 1) Biodiversity 1. Biodiversity 2) Ecosystem component 1. Mammals 2. Fish 3. Birds 4. Benthic habitat 5. Pelagic habitat 3) Species groups 1. Small toothed cetaceans 2. Seals 3. Grazing birds 4. Surface-feeding birds 5. Benthic-feeding birds 6. Wading birds 7. Pelagic feeding birds 8. Coastal fish 9. Pelagic shelf fish 10. Demersal shelf fish 11. Macroalgae 12. Angiosperms 13. Benthic fauna 14. Zooplankton 15. Phytoplankton 4) Species (42 units) 5) Different seal indicators? (9 units)

Assessment unit: Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Confidence by criteria Assessement by criteria L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Number of indicators used: 28 Temporal coverage Spatial representability X H I H X 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence I L Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on criteria level

Assessment unit: Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Assessment by Ecosystem component Confidence by ecosystem Number of indicators used: 28 component L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Temporal coverage Spatial representability H I 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence H I I Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score on ecosystem component level

Assessment unit : Baltic Sea Indicator type: Core indicators Assessment by Species groups Confidence by species Number of indicators used: 28 groups L – low , I – intermediate , H – high Temporal coverage Spatial representability I H XX I I 0.7 Accuracy of indicator result Methodological confidence L XX I H I Assessment score in centre. Petal size – score species group level

Assessment report – one page summary

Open questions, unsolved problems • Prototype of BEAT Tool was not available for testing • Final list of criteria, ecosystem components, units should be agreed? • Aggregation/presentation of confidence aspects - ? • Classes of confidence and classification rules • Naming: – EQR – Clear definition of indicator types (e.g. Core, WFD & Eutro Core indicators)