PESERA-DESMICE: Land management evaluation model

Table of Contents

1. Authors
2. Summary
3. Acronyms
4. Introduction
5. Coarse-scale model description
   1. The PESERA model: summary
   2. Alternative approaches to assessing soil erosion
   3. Process representation in PESERA
   4. Extensions of PESERA
   5. Adapting PESERA
   6. Assessment at catchment scales
6. Cost-effectiveness modelling
   1. Step 1
   2. Step 2
   3. Step 3
   4. Step 4
   5. Step 5
   6. Step 6
   7. Step 7
   8. Step 8
   9. Step 9
   10. Step 10
   11. Step 11
   12. Step 12
7. Agent-Based modelling in Spain
   1. Phase 1
   2. Phase 2
   3. Phase 3
   4. Phase 4
   5. Phase 5
   6. Phase 6
8. Input-Output modelling in Spain
   1. Model construction
   2. Scenario analyses
9. References

Extensions of PESERA

Extensions of the PESERA model in DESIRE and other projects

The fundamental outline of the PESERA model was established within the PESERA EU project, and provided the best currently available level of calibration, so that the model could be applied broadly within Europe. To take advantage of this prior work, it is essential to retain the fundamental framework of the model, and to add refinements to enhance its range of application, providing representation for additional processes in a way that is compatible with the overall framework.

The main part of this further model development work took place in the DeSurvey project, including integration within the DeSurvey Integrated Assessment Model (in collaboration with other partners), as well as application to selected areas. This work primarily included the incorporation of model components for explicit treatment of wind erosion and grazing, which were developed making using of knowledge and data from Tunisia and Senegal in particular, thus extending the application of the model for the first time into North and West Africa.

Within the DESIRE project, it was planned to incorporate the effects of fire in a more explicit way, and to incorporate fine scale features within PESERA to adapt it for estimation of the erosional and hydrological impacts of the mitigation and remediation strategies described in the WOCAT questionnaires and selected in participatory workshops for each site area. This work built upon the existing model and its developments to provide a secure foundation for the additional work. These developments are summarised in the Table below.

The PESERA model is being used as one of the fundamental building blocks within the development of integrated models for both the Desire (2007-2012) and DeSurvey (2005-2010) IPs. The inclusion of a relatively well established model (Kirkby et al. 2004, 2008; Licciardello et al. 2009, Tsara et al., 2005) provides a solid basis for development of the special features relevant to each project. It allows Desire to make use of advances made within DeSurvey, and offers mutual reinforcement of complementary work in the two projects. This allows us to concentrate our evaluation on other, less well tested components of the integrated model. Continuing support for work with PESERA also helps to ensure the continued availability of the model and support for applying it in these and other projects. Table 2.1 summarises the main commonalities and differences in the use of PESERA within the two projects.

The main socio-economic model used in DeSurvey has been developed by RIKS (NL) and is largely a spatially distributed economic model, based on probabilities of change within a cellular automaton framework. In contrast, the innovative model being developed in DESIRE for the Guadalentin is an Agent-Based Model making use of questionnaires addressed to stakeholders in the field (see section 4.1 for details). It will be highly instructive to compare the outcomes of these contrasting approaches, and it is particularly valuable that both are being applied within the Guadalentin catchment. At the present state of the art, the process basis of biophysical models is relatively secure, whereas effective integration with socio-economic models is an area of recognised importance but without a definitive preferred methodology. This complementarity between the DeSurvey and Desire projects is therefore of considerable scientific interest and importance.

Table 2.1: Key commonalities and differences between the use of PESERA in DESIRE and DeSurvey