ACCOUNTING TOOL FOR MEASURING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE AT A PARTICULAR SITE

• US 20100070320A1
• Filed: 09/10/2009
• Published: 03/18/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 09/15/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Parametrix, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Parametrix, Inc.
• Inventors: HALSEY, Michelle Kenna, Halsey, Kevin P., Benck, Kevin M.
• Application Number:
  US12/557,349
• Publication Number:
  US 20100070320A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/12 Accounting
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/165 Land development

Abstract

An accounting method to measure ecological value (or measurement of functional performance) of a particular site that divides the site into individual map units as determined by the number of substantially homogenous habitats found at the site. Habitat functions are determined per individual map unit. Performance indicators, such as habitat structures, physical and biological features, and other components, are identified and collected according to predefined ranges in the field or from actual site data. The values of performance indicators are assessed or scored based on collected data using look-up tables to create an indicator of functional performance. The indicator of functional performance is inputted into formulas to derive a measurement of functional performance at the individual map unit and the overall site. The accounting method of the present invention can also calculate ecological change at a particular site by calculating initial or baseline site values and a projected future value based on a particular projected modification (e.g., restoration or development) at the site and effects the modification may have over a period of time (e.g., 20 years). The difference between the future and the baseline values, whether a credit (uplift) or debit (impact or site degradation), can then be used in diverse applications, such as mitigation banking, ecological exchanges, registries, or as part of business or government decision/policy making.

Claims

1. An accounting method for measuring ecological condition of a particular site, the method comprising:

(a) identifying substantially homogeneous habitats within a particular site and dividing the site into individual map units that correspond to substantially homogeneous habitat types;

(b) collecting data based on physical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) habitat functions of each substantially homogeneous habitat type of the individual map units to ascertain performance indicators (PI) of both abiotic and biotic functions for each map unit;

(c) collecting data for each PI according to defined quantitative and/or qualitative ranges that correspond to look-up tables for both abiotic and biotic functions that contain scoring information for each PI'"'"'s ability to perform the relevant habitat functions;

(d) scoring each PI via the look-up tables;

(e) calculating abiotic and biotic functional performance values (FP) for each abiotic and biotic habitat function by summing the scores from the look-up tables for each respective type PI and dividing the sum by the number of PIs of the type (abiotic or biotic);

(f) calculating an average abiotic functional performance (FP_A) by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs within each map unit;

(g) calculating an average biotic functional performance (FP_B) by functional performance by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs within each map unit

(h) calculating an overall functional performance value (FP′

) for each map unit by averaging the FP_A and the FP_B of each map unit;

(i) summing the total of each FP′

for each map unit to derive a measure of functional performance value (MFP) of the site.

2. The method according to claim 1 wherein an aerial map of the site is obtained.

3. The method according to claim 1 wherein the look-up tables for performance indicator values are assessed in a numerical range from 0-100% based on statistical curves.

4. The method according to claim 3 wherein the number of incremental units for each performance indicator is determined by repeatability requirements and statistical curves.

5. The method according to claim 2 wherein each aerial map is digitized.

6. The method according to claim 1 wherein field data is inputted into field data sheets broken out by habitat type and performance indicators within statistical ranges.

7. The accounting method according to claim 1 in which the derived measure of functional performance of the site can be utilized in one of the following:

a registry, an exchange, or in mitigation banking.

8. The accounting method according to claim 1 in which the a future measure of functional performance is forecasted in the same methodology for the same site but at a future period in which a planned site modification is implemented and that the measurement of functional change is the difference of the measurement of functional performance of the initial unmodified site and the measurement of the future functional performance.

9. The accounting method according to claim 8 wherein the measurement of functional change can be utilized in one of the following:

a registry, an exchange, in mitigation banking, or as part of business or government decision/policy making.

12. The method according to claim 1 wherein the act of collecting data based on abiotic and biotic habitat functions and the quantitative and/or qualitative condition of the PIs present within each map unit is inputted into a computer software database.

13. The method according to claim 1 wherein the lookup tables are a computer database and the step of scoring each PI is via the computerized look-up tables database.

14. The method according to claim 1 wherein calculations and summing steps are implemented through a computer program and the MFP value is recorded in an electronic medium.

10. An accounting method for measuring ecological change of a particular site;

the system comprising;

(a) creating a baseline ecological value at a particular site comprising

(i) identifying substantially homogeneous habitats within a particular site and dividing the site into individual map units that correspond to substantially homogeneous habitat types;

(ii) collecting data based on physical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) habitat functions of each substantially homogeneous habitat type of the individual map units to ascertain performance indicators (PI) of both abiotic and biotic functions for each map unit;

(iii) collecting data for each PI according to defined quantitative and/or qualitative ranges that correspond to look-up tables for both abiotic and biotic functions that contain scoring information for each PI'"'"'s ability to perform the relevant habitat functions;

(iv) scoring each PI via the look-up tables;

(v) calculating abiotic and biotic functional performance values (FP) for each abiotic and biotic habitat function by summing the scores from the look-up tables for each respective type PI and dividing the sum by the number of PIs of the type (abiotic or biotic);

(vi) calculating an average abiotic functional performance (FP_A) by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs with each map unit;

(vii) calculating an average biotic functional performance (FP_B) by functional performance by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs with each map unit

(viii) calculating an overall functional performance value (FP′

) for each map unit by averaging the FP_A and the FP_B of each map unit;

(ix) summing the total of individual FP′

for each map unit to derive a measure of functional performance value (MFP) of the site;

(b) creating an ecological value of a particular site in a set future time based on a future projection after a site modification project has been implemented comprising

(i) identifying substantially homogeneous habitats within a particular site and dividing the site into individual map units that correspond to substantially homogeneous habitat types;

all based on planned future condition;

(ii) collecting data based on projected future physical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) habitat functions of each substantially homogeneous habitat type of the future condition individual map units to ascertain future performance indicators (PI_F) of both abiotic and biotic functions for each map unit;

(iii) collecting data for each PI_F according to defined quantitative and/or qualitative ranges that correspond to look-up tables for both abiotic and biotic functions that contain scoring information for each PI_F'"'"'s ability to perform the relevant habitat functions;

(iv) scoring each PI_F via the look-up tables;

(v) calculating future abiotic and biotic functional performance values (FP_F) for each abiotic and biotic habitat function by summing the scores from the look-up tables for each respective type PI_F and dividing the sum by the number of PI_Fs of each future map unit;

(vi) calculating a future average abiotic functional performance (FP_AF) by averaging the abiotic FP_Fs performed by the PI_Fs within each future map unit;

(vii) calculating a future average biotic functional performance (FP_BF) by functional performance by averaging the abiotic FP_Fs performed by the PI_Fs with each future map unit

(viii) calculating a future overall functional performance value (FP_F′

) for each future map unit by averaging the FP_AF and the FP_BF of each future map unit;

(ix) summing the total of each FP_F′

for each future map unit to derive a future measure of functional performance value (MFP_F) of the site;

and

(c) calculating the benefit or detriment to the particular site based on the difference between the future measure of functional performance (MFP_F) and the baseline measure of functional performance (MFP) to arrive a measurement of functional change (MFC) of a particular site.

11. The accounting method according to claim 10 in which the calculated benefit or detriment value can be utilized in one of the following:

a registry, an exchange, or in mitigation banking.

15. One or more computer readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer executable instructions for performing a method of measuring ecological condition of a particular site, the method comprising:

(a) identifying substantially homogeneous habitats within a particular site and dividing the site into individual map units that correspond to substantially homogeneous habitat types;

(b) collecting data based on physical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) habitat functions of each substantially homogeneous habitat type of the individual map units to ascertain performance indicators (PI) of both abiotic and biotic functions for each map unit;

(c) collecting data for each PI according to defined quantitative and/or qualitative ranges that correspond to look-up tables for both abiotic and biotic functions that contain scoring information for each PI'"'"'s ability to perform the relevant habitat functions;

(d) scoring each PI via the look-up tables;

(e) calculating abiotic and biotic functional performance values (FP) for each abiotic and biotic habitat function by summing the scores from the look-up tables for each respective type PI and dividing the sum by the number of PIs within the map unit;

(f) calculating an average abiotic functional performance (FP_A) by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs within each map unit;

(g) calculating an average biotic functional performance (FP_B) by functional performance by averaging the abiotic FPs performed by the PIs with each map unit

(h) calculating an overall functional performance value (FP′

) for each map unit by averaging the FP_A and the FP_B of each map unit; and

(i) summing the total of each FP′

for each map unit to derive a measure of functional performance value (MFP) of the site;