Mapping of natural resources sustainable use in the case studies of secoa project

239 Tuyển Tập Nghiên Cứu Biển, 2013, tập 19: 239-253 MAPPING OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUSTAINABLE USE IN THE CASE STUDIES OF SECOA PROJECT Tran Dinh Lan, Do Thi Thu Huong, Cao Thi Thu Trang Institute of Marine Environment and Resources Abstract Series of maps of sustainable use of coastal natural resources focusing on coastal ecosystems and their important components in SECOA project case studies in partner countries of Belgium, India, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, the UK and Vietnam show clearly the level of sustainable or unsustainable uses spatially and temporally. Although having some limitations in indication of sustainable use of coastal ecosystem due to the lack of data at different time points, the maps of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in case studies are exercises showing the qualitative approach to assessment of sustainable use of natural resources. Using indicators of ecosystem sustainability for assessment and mapping coastal resources use is a simple method but requires datum sequences at different time points. Making maps of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems also provide the change in area of each level (very sustainable, sustainable, unsustainable and very unsustainable) of the use of coastal ecosystems. I. INTRODUCTION Within the frame work of the project ‘Solutions for Environmental Contrasts in Coastal Areas’ – SECOA project, maps of sustainable resources use in SECOA case studies of partner countries as Belgium, India, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, the UK and Vietnam have been made to interpret and provide more information on assessment of natural resources use. To do assessment of the sustainable use of natural resources then produce the maps, three approaches were taken into account, including DPSIR framework analysis, sustainable use indicators and sustainability index with increasingly quantitative assessment. However, the later approaches require more systematic data that are not always collected and become one of the critical limitations of these methods. Coastal ecosystems or their components in the case studies were selected and assessed based on the main criteria and indices. II. METHODOLOGY Mapping sustainable use of natural resources in coastal area of case studies is based on DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressure, State, Impact and Response) frame work analysis or more quantitatively the sustainability indicators and index. The sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in case studies was assessed at 4 levels: - Very sustainable - Sustainable - Unsustainable - Very unsustainable Base maps and their scales are selected by SECOA partners. The map scales are selected mainly dependent on the geographical scope of selected case studies and the available data, indicators and indices. Geographic information system (GIS) technology is employed for mapping. There are two exceptional cases of the partners of the UK and Sweden in mapping of sustainable use of coastal natural 240 resources. The UK partner developed two kinds of indicators, including indicators of sustainability and relative indicators of sustainability to indicate the areas under higher or lower pressure levels without actually quantifying them and use these indicators to produce maps. Swedish partners have taken into account the 2050 scenarios of human activity and climate change to map the land use change in SECOA Swedish case studies. The mapping and analysis of Swedish case studies has gone through four steps: 1) Combination of selected layers indicating status, values and threats/pressures (maps of status 2010, maps of pressures 2050) using GIS; 2) Assessment of the degree of pressure based on qualitative and quantitative information about specific areas; 3) Combination with earlier and proposed responses, measure areas of different categories (maps of status 2050, tables on status 2010 and future threats & proposed measures 2050); and 4) Assessment of the threats in relation to the measures proposed. III. MAPS OF SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN CASE STUDIES 1. Belgian case studies SECOA Belgian case studies include the ones of Brugge and Oostende. Because these two case studies are close to each other and in the same coastal system, the coastal ecosystems in the two case studies were assessed and mapped together. Outputs of the analysis and calculation of sustainability indicators from the set of sustainability of the coastal ecosystem (Table 1) allow mapping the sustainable use of the coastal ecosystem in case studies. Maps of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in Belgian case studies were made for non-built area (including agriculture, natural and semi natural habitats, and open spaces) in the period of seven years from 2001 to 2007, showing an unstable trend in area of sustainable use. The total of non-built area in the case studies was decreased over years. The coastal ecosystems were in sustainable use in 2001, 2003 and 2005 with total area of 70,096.5 ha, 69,878.7 ha and 69,707.8 ha, respectively, and in unsustainable use in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007 with total area of 69,979.2 ha, 69,788.6 ha, 69,612.5 ha and 69,438.2 ha, respectively. Map 1. Map of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in SECOA case studies of Belgium, 2007 241 Table 1. Calculated values of Index of sustainability (Isu) for the coastal ecosystems of Belgian case studies Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ISU 0.609 0.460 0.717 0.434 0.582 0.491 0.455 Sources: N2.3 and D2.2 2. Indian case studies Mangrove ecosystem in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and marshland ecosystem in Chennai Metropolitan Region (CMR) were assessed and mapped for three time points: 1997, 2003 and 2008. Calculated values of sustainability index from the set of sustainability indicators of selected ecosystems in MMR and CNR (Table 2) were used to map the sustainable use of these ecosystems. Maps of sustainable use of mangrove ecosystem in MMR and marshland ecosystem in CMR show in 2008 a remarkable increase of unsustainable and very unsustainable wards, and the disappearance of some very sustainable wards that existed in 1997. In MMR, total area of mangrove ecosystem was decreased from 140.34 sq.km in 1997 to 97.39 sq.km in 2003 and then 96.98 sq.km in 2008. In more details, there were changes in area from very sustainable use into very unsustainable use in the period of 1997-2007. It is remarkable that in 1997, there existed 36.08 sq.km of mangroves in a very sustainable use but in 2008 there was none of them. The similar trend was observed in CMR (Table 3.). Map 2. Map of sustainable use of mangrove ecosystem in Mumbai case study of India 242 Table 2. Calculated values of sustainability indices for mangrove ecosystem (MMR) and marshland ecosystem (CNR) in Indian case studies Year
1997 2003 2008 Mangrove sustainability index - MMR 0.56 0.49 0.41 Marshland sustainability index - CNR 0.67 0.61 0.55 Sources: N2.3 and D2.2 Table 3. Changes of sustainable use levels in area of mangrove ecosystem (MMR) and marshland ecosystem (CMR) Name (Case study (or sub-))/year Assessed Area (in sq. km) Area of very sustainable use (in sq. km) Area of sustainable use (in sq. km) Area of unsustainable use (in sq. km) Area of very unsustainable use (in sq. km) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Mumbai 1997 140.34 36.08 85.80 18.46 0.00 Mangrove ecosystem 2003 97.39 0.81 51.60 44.98 0.00 Mangrove ecosystem 2008 96.98 0.00 40.60 56.34 0.04 Mangrove ecosystem Chennai 1997 11.19 1.76 9.27 0.16 0.00 Marshland Ecosystem 2003 9.18 0.13 3.77 5.28 0.00 Marshland Ecosystem 2008 8.03 0.07 2.77 0.57 4.62 Marshland Ecosystem 3. Israeli case studies Israeli partner assessed and mapped the same ecosystem of sandy coastal trip, focusing on natural vegetation for the two case studies of Palmachim –Tel Aviv and Carmel Coast-Haifa. Sets of sustainability indicators of the coastal ecosystems allow calculating the values of sustainability index (Table 4) to be used to map the sustainable use of the coastal ecosystem. The changes of natural vegetation cover were mapped at two time points of 1995 and 2009, showing steadily general conversion of coastal area from sustainable use into unsustainable use of the ecosystem, except for some sub areas in the coastal trip (Table 5). Table 4. Calculated values of sustainability index for coastal ecosystems in Israeli case studies (a) Palmachim Area 1995 2009 Ashdod 0.185 0.162 Bat Yam 0.600 0.105 Gederot 0.600 0.100 Gan Raveh 0.229 0.187 243 Yavneh outskirts 0.305 0.144 Yavneh 0.494 0.118 Rishon LeTzion 0.100 0.167 (b) Carmel Coast Area 1995 2009 Carmel Shore 0.247 0.108 Haifa 0.344 0.110 Tirat Ha'Carmel 0.224 0.118 Furidis 0.489 0.102 No Jurisdiction 0.247 0.100 Sources: N2.3 and D2.2 Table 5. Changes in the area of coastal vegetation in SECOA case studies of Israel Name (Case study (or sub- ))/year Area of sustainable use (ha) Area of unsustainable use (ha) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Palmachim Ashdod 1995 1,149,110 514,468 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 829,658 1,034,729 Natural Vegetation Cover Bat Yam 1995 8,983,653 359,405 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 121,895 478,917 Natural Vegetation Cover Gderot 1995 4,882,318 39,080 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 1,797 108,928 Natural Vegetation Cover Gan Raveh 1995 4,755,680 282,640 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 3,322,902 498,265 Natural Vegetation Cover Yavneh outskirts 1995 6,350,984 22,541 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 1,629,212 260,461 Natural Vegetation Cover Yavneh 1995 8,685,015 1,244,365 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 548,841 3,109,018 Natural Vegetation Cover Rishon LeTzion 1995 - 1,709,801 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 1,594,681 4,203,883 Natural Vegetation Cover Carmel Carmel Shore 243 244 1995 15,286,204 3,317,127 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 950,184 6,465,662 Natural Vegetation Cover Haifa 1995 3,231,470 2,281,203 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 140,997 4,698,855 Natural Vegetation Cover Tirat Ha'Carmel 1995 638,789 2,496,734 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 92,887 3,018,428 Natural Vegetation Cover Furidis 1995 322,587 191,891 Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 - 538,834 Natural Vegetation Cover No Jurisdiction 1995 2,570,962 - Natural Vegetation Cover 2009 26,279 222 Natural Vegetation Cover Map 3. Map of sustainable use of coastal vegetation in Palmachim area of Tel-Aviv case study of Israel 4. Italian case studies Italian partner selected land use changes to assess and mapped as an important component of the coastal ecosystem for the two Italian case studies of Rome Metropolitan Area (with 11 coastal municipalities between Tarquinia and Nettuno) and Chieti-Pescara Metropolitan Area (with 5 coastal municipalities between Citta S.Angelo and Ortona) for two time points of 2000 and 2006, using data from Corine land cover and analysis of natural areas (Table 6). Moreover, coastal water use in XIII District of Rome was assessed and mapped. The maps of land use variation developed using land use variation index show the trends in land use changes that express the increase (negative value of the index) or the decrease (positive value of the index). For Rome case studies, variations of the land use index average -0,09 for the eleven municipalities, with a maximum of 245 +0,27 and a minimum of -0,27, and for Pescara one, variations of the land use index average -0,26 for the five municipalities, with values between -0,20 and -0,32. The maps of natural area percentage developed using the indicators of natural area percentage on the total surface area show in Rome case study, only XIII District had over 25 percent of natural area and the other areas had 0 percent to 25 percent; in Pescara, natural areas were only from 0 to 10 percent. Overall area of sustainable use and unsustainable use is in Table 7. Table 6. Index values of land use in coastal municipalities in Italian case studies Rome metropolitan area Municipality Land use variation index Percentage of natural areas on total land Anzio -0.26 10% Ardea -0.25 0.46% Cerveteri 0.25 23.50% Civitavecchia -0.25 15% Fiumicino 0.27 4% Ladispoli 0.00 4% Nettuno -0.27 16% Ostia -0.26 42% Pomezia -0.26 2% Santa Marinella 0.25 20% Tarquinia -0.27 13% Pescara metropolitan area Municipality Land use variation index Percentage of natural areas on total land Città Sant'Angelo -0.26 7.50% Francavilla -0.25 1.00% Montesilvano -0.27 5.50% Ortona -0.20 6.70% Pescara -0.32 2.00% Table 7. Area of sustainable use and unsustainable use in SECOA case studies of Italy Name (Casestudy (or sub-))/year Assessed Area (ha) Area of sustainable use (ha) Area of unsustainable use (ha) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Rome coastal municipalities 2000 102180 80896 21284 Woods and semi natural areas (shrubland, dunes, beaches); wetlands; agricultural areas Rome coastal municipalities 2006 101388 63526 37862 Woods and semi natural areas (shrubland, dunes, beaches); wetlands; agricultural areas Pescara coastal 17327 17327 Woods and semi natural areas 246 municipalities 2000 (shrubland, dunes, beaches); wetlands; agricultural areas Pescara coastal municipalities 2006 17130 1863 15267 Woods and semi natural areas (shrubland, dunes, beaches); wetlands; agricultural areas Map 4. Map of land use variation in case study of Rome, Italy (2000-2006) 5. Portuguese case studies Three Portuguese case studies of Metropolitan area of Lisbon, Eastern Algarve and Funchal (site Madeira) with their important ecological sites were assessed and mapped for three time points of 1990, 2000 and 2006. A set of sustainability indicators was analyzed for coastal ecosystems in these sites and applied for calculation of sustainability index values (Table 8) to be used for mapping the sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in the case studies. The maps of sustainable use of natural resources in these sites show the changes in area of very sustainable use into sustainable use over time (Table 9). Table 8. Calculated values of sustainability index for coastal ecosystems in Portuguese case studies of Metropolitan area of Lisbon, Eastern Algarve Metropolitan area of Lisbon 1990 2000 2006 Sustainability index 0.79 0.72 0.67 Eastern Algarve Sustainability index 0.88 0.79 0.67 Madeira Sustainability index 0.87 0.71 0.67 247 Table 9. Changes in area of ecological important sites in SECOA case studies of Portugal Name (Case study (or sub-))/year Assessed Area (ha) Area of very sustainable use (ha) Area of sustainable use (ha) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Metropolitan Area of Lisbon 1990 35511.35 35511.35 Ecological important sites 2000 35511.35 35511.35 Ecological important sites 2006 35511.35 35511.35 Ecological important sites Eastern Algarve 1990 27301.48 27301.48 Ecological important sites 2000 27301.48 27301.48 Ecological important sites 2006 27301.48 27301.48 Ecological important sites Madeira (Funchal) 1990 353.30 353.30 Ecological important sites 2000 353.30 353.30 Ecological important sites 2006 353.30 353.30 Ecological important sites Map 5. Map of sustainable use in ecological important sites of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal 247 6. Swedish case study of Vellinge municipality Swedish partner used GIS-material from the municipalities, the county administrative boards of Scania and West Götaland, analyses of climate change by authorities on different level and other experts, and demographic statistical material from Statistics Sweden to map sustainable use of coastal land use as a main component of coastal resources. The maps show key elements of land use status (coastal wetlands, open land, forest and settlement), pressure on land use (social-economic development and climate change) and responses (natural conservation, cultural heritage conservation, dams and tram line). Presently, coastal wetlands in Vellinge are used and managed relatively sustainably being under some kind of protection regime (Natura 2000 and other types of protected areas and measures to keep coastal meadows and heaths open). However, inundations due to climate change and an expected population growth will change the situation (Table 10 and 11). As the maps show, the proposed dams will not help protecting coastal wetlands. Thus, it is difficult to achieve a long-term “sustainability” with a perspective of 50 years in the future for today’s coastal wetland areas. Rather, new wetlands will develop – on the coast of dry habitats, open landscape, and recreation areas. Erosion and accretion may change the layout of the peninsula further. The proposed dams can protect settlement and recreation areas and some dryland habitats. A planned tramline will reduce needs for car transport. But the location of the dams is contested by the conservation section of the regional authorities. The Falsterbo case raises a further sustainability problem. The municipality is in a dilemma – defending the existing historical and real estate values or moving higher up, where valuable agricultural land would have to be claimed. In the last decades, productive land has declined in favour of infrastructure and settlement. Nature conservation- and forested areas have increased or at least remained constant. Table 10. Climate change and sustainable land use on Falsterbo peninsula in Vellinge municipality: Status, pressures & responses 2050 Indicators Status 2010 Pressure 2050 Sea level rise: lost/gained by inundation Response: dams Area (ha) Types & subtypes MWL +0m MWL +0.5m HHWL +2.15m Within (+2.15m) Outside (+2.15m) Valuable habitats Coastal wetlands: humid slacks, salt marshes 28 -23 -25 3 25 Open land: mudflats, dunes, grasslands, heaths, parks, recreat. 3427 -103 -1345 120 23 Forest 457 0 -234 75 2 Land uses Agriculture 13213 0 -349 398 654 Settlement 1777 0 -267 260 0 Total 18902 -126 -2220 856 704 Nature conservation Land-based: incl. all coastal wetlands 4138 -396 -1519 304 2619 248 249 Marine: rocks, sand- banks, coastal lagoons 42164 396 1519 Total 46302 Cultural heri- tage conserv National interest areas 14320 -284 -697 684 157 Table 11. Urbanisation and sustainable land use on Falsterbo peninsula in Vellinge municipality: Status 2010 and extrapolated pressures 2050 Vellinge Indicators Pressure: development & population Present 2010 Settlement area 1450 Ha Population, permanent 20037 inh. Winter density 13.8 inh./ha Summer population 60000 inh. Summer density 41.4 inh./ha Pressures by 20501 Planned settlement area 1750 Ha Extrapolated permanent population 29832 inh. Extrapolated density 17.0 inh./ha Map 6. Climate change and sustainable land use with dams, 2010 - 2050 in Falsterbo Peninsula, Vellinge municipality 7. The case studies of the UK The two SECOA case studies of Thames Gateway and Portsmouth in the UK were assessed and mapped with the coastal ecosystems of intertidal flats and saltmarshes in scientific special sites of interests (SSSI). Sets of sustainability indicators for these ecosystems in SSSI 250 were analyzed and applied to calculate index of sustainability and then to formulate the values of mean rank and final rank to generate maps of sustainable use of these ecosystems (Table 12) . The maps show the trend of selected indicators of sustainability and relative indicators of sustainability of these ecosystems and not conditions at specific points in time. All sub areas of scientific special sites of interests in the two case studies were in very sustainable use until 2010 (Table 13). Table 12. Mean rank values and final rank based on the Index of Sustainability (Istrank) and the Relative Index of Sustainability (RIstrank) Portsmouth harbour Langstone harbour Benfleet Thames estuary Medway Swale Mean rank 3.1 2.0 4.8 4.1 1.5 5.5 IstRank 3 2 5 4 1 6 Mean rank 5.7 4.0 3.1 4.6 2.2 1.5 RIstRank 6 4 3 5 2 1 Sources: D2.2 Table 13. Area of sustainable use in SECOA case studies of the UK (2010) Name (Case study (or sub-))/year Assessed area (ha) Area of very sustainable use (ha) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Portsmouth Portsmouth Harbour SSSI 1063.0 1063.0 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes Langstone Harbour SSSI 653.8 653.8 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes Thames Gateway Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI 5532.5 5532.5 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes Benfleet and Southend Marshes SSSI 2373.7 2373.7 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI 4748.8 4748.8 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes The Swale SSSI 4709.8 4709.8 Intertidal flats and saltmarshes Map 7. Map of Indicators of sustainability (IS) of SSSI in SECOA case studies of the UK 251 8. Vietnamese case studies Mangrove ecosystem in Hai Phong case study and coral reef ecosystem in both case studies of Hai Phong and Nha Trang were assessed and mapped. Calculated values of sustainability index for mangrove ecosystem and coral reef ecosystem were derived from set of sustainability indicators analysis and then used for mapping sustainable use of these ecosystems (Table 14 and 15). Table 14. Calculated values of sustainability index for mangrove ecosystem (Imst) by district and the whole area of Hai Phong Year Cat Hai Duong Kinh Do Son Hai An Kien Thuy Thuy Nguyen Tien Lang Whole area 1989 Imst 0.76 0.42 0.72 0.63 0.34 0.67 1995 Imst 0.70 0.29 0.49 0.35 0.36 0.54 2001 Imst 0.62 0.32 0.44 0.36 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.49 2007 Imst 0.35 0.29 0.63 0.19 0.24 0.45 0.54 0.42 Sources: N2.3 Table 15. Calculated values of Sustainability index for coral reef (Icst) in Vietnamese case studies Hai Phong, 2003 Cong La Ang Tham Ba Trai Dao Hang Trai Cong Do Tung Ngon Coc Cheo Whole area Ic1 0.53 0.33 0.49 0.28 0.53 0.39 0.83 Ic2 0.58 0.13 0.52 0.83 0.04 0.74 0.82 Icst 0.56 0.23 0.51 0.56 0.28 0.56 0.82 0.5 Nha Trang Bay, 2010 Bai Bang Hon Tam Hon Mun Hon Mieu Nha Trang Bay Ic1 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.5 Ic2 0.52 0.2 0.6 0.05 Icst 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0,5 Analyzing maps, it is shown that, mangrove ecosystem has a spatial distribution in coastal wetlands of Hai Phong and a trend of unsustainable use in northeast coastal area of Hai Phong. Though in some specific districts in the southwestern part of Hai Phong, mangrove forest area was increased in the period from 1989-2007, the area of mangrove ecosystem was in general decreased over time (Table 16). Coral reef ecosystem in the two case studies were monitored at some important sites with transect method. Therefore, data of coral reef area are not available, and then polygon mapping is impossible. Then the maps of sustainable use of coral reef ecosystem in both two case studies of Hai Phong and Nha Trang are shown in points. 252 Table 16. Changes in area of mangrove ecosystem in SECOA case study of Hai Phong, Vietnam Name (Case study (or sub-))/year Assessed Area (ha) Area of sustainable use (ha) Area of unsustainable use (ha) Area of very unsustainable use (ha) Assessed component (ecosystem or environmental component) Hai Phong 1989 2977.76 Mangrove ecosystem 1995 2088.3 764.35 1323.95 Mangrove ecosystem 2001 2555.15 1052.81 1502.34 Mangrove ecosystem 2007 1943.21 945.63 610.35 387.23 Mangrove ecosystem Map 8. Map of sustainable use of mangrove forest in Hai Phong, Vietnam, 2007 III. CONCLUSION REMARKS Series of maps of sustainable use of coastal natural resources focusing on coastal ecosystems and their important components in SECOA case studies show clearly the level of sustainable or unsustainable uses spatially and temporally. Although having some limitations in indication of sustainable use of coastal ecosystem due to the lack of data at different time points, the maps of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems in case studies are exercises showing the 253 qualitative approach to assessment of sustainable use of natural resources. Using indicators of ecosystem sustainability for assessment and mapping coastal resources use is a simple method but requires datum sequences at different time points. Making maps of sustainable use of coastal ecosystems also provide the change in area of each level (very sustainable, sustainable, unsustainable and very unsustainable) of the use of coastal ecosystems. Despite of the above benefits when producing the maps, the differences in scale of selected coastal ecosystems and in assessment periods, and the use of different indicators for mapping are the main limitations that make the comparison of the mapping results among case studies impossible. Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission, Seventh Framework Program - Environment (including Climate Change) under grant agreement n° 244251. REFERENCES Secoa project, 2011. Assessment of natural resources use for sustainable development (N2.3). Secoa project, 2011. National reports of maps of sustainable use of coastal natural resources of Italy and Sweden Secoa project, 2010. National reports of DPSIR framework of Belgium, India, Italy, Portugal, UK and Vietnam. Secoa project, 2010. National reports of Assessment of Natural Resources Use for Sustainable Development of Belgium, India, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, UK and Vietnam (D2.2).