Geology topics

James W. Boyd

Publications and source records attributed to James W. Boyd.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Accounting for land in the United States: Integrating physical land cover, land use, and monetary valuation

Land plays a critical role in both economic and environmental accounting. As an asset, it occupies a unique position at the intersection of the System of National Accounts (SNA), the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA-CF), and (as a spatial unit) SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA), making land a natural starting point for developing natural capital accounts more generally. We develop a pilot set of national and subnational land accounts for the United States that are consistent with the SEEA-CF and SNA principles, quantified in both physical and monetary terms. The physical accounts utilize detailed land use (National Land Use Database) and land cover (National Land Cover Database) datasets, which provide insights into how land cover in the U.S. is changing over time. To provide aggregate estimates of land values, we use a hedonic approach that exploits fine-grain microdata (“big data” from Zillow) that contains detailed information from hundreds of millions of property transactions and their corresponding physical characteristics covering much of the U.S. Methodologically, we show that it is feasible to produce monetary accounts for land that can be directly linked to and integrated with physical land cover/use. Overall, U.S. land cover has shown declines in forests, cropland, and pasture with increases in barren, scrub/shrub, and developed classes, which are particularly concentrated in the U.S. Southeast. Nominal land values in the U.S. fell about 28% ($7 trillion) from the boom to bust periods in the prior decade, albeit with substantial regional variation, and have subsequently experienced a nearly full recovery in recent years. We estimate private land in the contiguous 48 states to be worth approximately $25.1 trillion in 2016.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2020

The IPBES global assessment: Pathways to action

The first Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found widespread, accelerating declines in Earth’s biodiversity and associated benefits to people from nature. Addressing these trends will require science-based policy responses to reduce impacts, especially at national to local scales. Effective scaling of science-policy efforts driven by global and national assessments is a major challenge for turning assessment into action, and will require unprecedented commitments on the part of scientists to engage with communities of policy and practice. Fulfillment of science’s social contract with society, and with nature, will require strong institutional support for scientists’ participation in activities that transcend conventional research and publication.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2018

The natural capital accounting opportunity: Let's really do the numbers

The nation’s economic accounts provide objective, regular, and standardized information routinely relied upon by public and private decision makers. But they are incomplete. The U.S. and many other nations currently do not account for the natural capital — such as the wildlife, forests, grasslands, soils, and water bodies—upon which all other economic activity rests. By creating formal natural capital accounts (NCA) and ecosystem goods and services (EGS) accounts, governments and businesses can better understand the past, peer into the future, innovate, conserve, and plan for environmental shocks. They would standardize, regularly repeat, and aggregate diverse natural resource, environmental, and social and economic data and could thereby play a significant role in advancing the science of coupled biophysical and social systems.

BioScience↗

USGS2018

Integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services concepts to improve natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities

Executive Summary—Overview Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans. This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts. Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty. Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually. Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions: How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation? How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice? What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services? And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Circular↗