Landscape Modeling for Blue Wing Teal in the Sheboygan River Basin: A Weighted Criterion Approach C. Pekar, October

1. Landscape Modeling for Blue Wing Teal in the Sheboygan River Basin: A Weighted Criterion Approach C. Pekar, October 1, 2009Advisor: Dr. Todd Bacastow My name, title, employer. I am proposing to do a raster based site selection search. The geographic study area is the Sheboygan River Basin (~600 sq miles) on the shores of Lake Michigan in the Great State of Wisconsin. The goal of the search will be to identify potentially restorable wetlands with the intent of creating BWT nesting habitatMy name, title, employer. I am proposing to do a raster based site selection search. The geographic study area is the Sheboygan River Basin (~600 sq miles) on the shores of Lake Michigan in the Great State of Wisconsin. The goal of the search will be to identify potentially restorable wetlands with the intent of creating BWT nesting habitat

2. I’d like to start by providing you all with a brief outline of this presentation. 1st, I’ll provide a little background on the issue of weighting criterion layers… 2nd, I will discuss the method I will be using to derive weightings for the criterion layers – AHP 3rd, I will explain the importance of identifying potentially restorable wetlands in the Sheboygan River Basin 4th, I will review some related projects Finally, I will go over my proposed project I’d like to start by providing you all with a brief outline of this presentation. 1st, I’ll provide a little background on the issue of weighting criterion layers… 2nd, I will discuss the method I will be using to derive weightings for the criterion layers – AHP 3rd, I will explain the importance of identifying potentially restorable wetlands in the Sheboygan River Basin 4th, I will review some related projects Finally, I will go over my proposed project

3. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the concept of raster analysis. An area of land is divided into similarly sized tiles. Within each layer, each tile is given a value reflecting a real-world attribute such as soil land cover or slope. In its simplest form, raster layers are simply added together and a new set of values for each tile position is generated in the output layer. -straight additive approach In the real world, decision making criteria are infrequently evenly weighted. So how does one weight criteria? EG: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Delphi and Ratio Estimation (RE) (as knowledge-driven) and Logistic Regression (LR), Weight Of Evidence (WOE) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) (as data-driven methods). The method I will be implementing is the AHP. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the concept of raster analysis. An area of land is divided into similarly sized tiles. Within each layer, each tile is given a value reflecting a real-world attribute such as soil land cover or slope. In its simplest form, raster layers are simply added together and a new set of values for each tile position is generated in the output layer. -straight additive approach In the real world, decision making criteria are infrequently evenly weighted. So how does one weight criteria? EG: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Delphi and Ratio Estimation (RE) (as knowledge-driven) and Logistic Regression (LR), Weight Of Evidence (WOE) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) (as data-driven methods). The method I will be implementing is the AHP.

4. The AHP is a decision support tool invented by Dr. Thomas Saaty of the U Pitt. Originally a DSS used for by governement and business, there is growing interest in incorporating it into GIS. The hallmark characteristic of AHP is that it requires an expert panel to make “pairwise comparisons” of all the criteria to determine weights for those criteria.The AHP is a decision support tool invented by Dr. Thomas Saaty of the U Pitt. Originally a DSS used for by governement and business, there is growing interest in incorporating it into GIS. The hallmark characteristic of AHP is that it requires an expert panel to make “pairwise comparisons” of all the criteria to determine weights for those criteria.

5. This figure represents the traditional depiction of the AHP, where you can see a problem is broken down into a hierarchy of goals, criteria and alternatives. You can also see how each component relates to all the other components.This figure represents the traditional depiction of the AHP, where you can see a problem is broken down into a hierarchy of goals, criteria and alternatives. You can also see how each component relates to all the other components.

6. Because the goal of this proccss is to determine weights for various criteria, what we are really hoping to do is to transform subjective judgements to objective weights and the comparing the relative importance of each criteria in relation to each other criteria is the first step. These comparisons are made using the FSAN. The F S A N is a scale developed by Saaty. And this is what is used during the pairwise comparisons. If I have three criteria, they all need to be compared against each other- A to B, B to C, and A to C. If the expert panel determines they are of equal importance, they are assigned a 1. If criteria A is considered extremely more important than criteria B, criteria A is given a 9 and criteria B is given the inverse value, 1/9th Because the goal of this proccss is to determine weights for various criteria, what we are really hoping to do is to transform subjective judgements to objective weights and the comparing the relative importance of each criteria in relation to each other criteria is the first step. These comparisons are made using the FSAN. The F S A N is a scale developed by Saaty. And this is what is used during the pairwise comparisons. If I have three criteria, they all need to be compared against each other- A to B, B to C, and A to C. If the expert panel determines they are of equal importance, they are assigned a 1. If criteria A is considered extremely more important than criteria B, criteria A is given a 9 and criteria B is given the inverse value, 1/9th

7. The score resulting from the pairwise comparison need to be entered into a matrix. This slide shows an example of a matrix completed for a search for suitable locations for gravel pits. You can see that each criteria is assigned a “1” when compared against itself. A note on reading these grids….above the diagonal band of ones are scores for the criteria on the left being compared TO the criteria above. Let’s compare Distance to Settlements with OVerburden The score resulting from the pairwise comparison need to be entered into a matrix. This slide shows an example of a matrix completed for a search for suitable locations for gravel pits. You can see that each criteria is assigned a “1” when compared against itself. A note on reading these grids….above the diagonal band of ones are scores for the criteria on the left being compared TO the criteria above. Let’s compare Distance to Settlements with OVerburden

8. So once we have our expert panel collaborate and fill out our matrix, exactly how do we derive weights… Weights are derived by dividing each score by the sum of the column of the value under consideration. A new value is then derived for each score. These new values are then added together by row (or, rather, by criterion). These newest values are then divided by the sum of the new column is the weight of the criterion’s input. The result of this is the weight for that criteria. If the weights all add up to 1 then you’ve done your math correctly. I’d like to point out that I’ll be using an AHP plug-in developed by Dr. Oswald Marinoni, a researcher working with the Australian government. This plug-in allows the user to drag the layers into a dialogue box and then fill out the matrix. The plug in then does the calculations. So once we have our expert panel collaborate and fill out our matrix, exactly how do we derive weights… Weights are derived by dividing each score by the sum of the column of the value under consideration. A new value is then derived for each score. These new values are then added together by row (or, rather, by criterion). These newest values are then divided by the sum of the new column is the weight of the criterion’s input. The result of this is the weight for that criteria. If the weights all add up to 1 then you’ve done your math correctly. I’d like to point out that I’ll be using an AHP plug-in developed by Dr. Oswald Marinoni, a researcher working with the Australian government. This plug-in allows the user to drag the layers into a dialogue box and then fill out the matrix. The plug in then does the calculations.

9. Now a note on Consistency. There can be situations when Criterion A is ranked more important than Criterion B, Criterion B is ranked higher than Criterion C but Criterion C is ranked higher than Criterion A. Saaty has provided a check against this. CR = CI/RI It is recommended that the Consistency Ratio stay below 0.1 The Ratio Index is a defined number dependent on the number of criteria being used. The Consistency Index is calculated by a formula created by Dr. Saaty. Fortunately, the plug-in I will be using determines the Consistency Ratio automatically. Now a note on Consistency. There can be situations when Criterion A is ranked more important than Criterion B, Criterion B is ranked higher than Criterion C but Criterion C is ranked higher than Criterion A. Saaty has provided a check against this. CR = CI/RI It is recommended that the Consistency Ratio stay below 0.1 The Ratio Index is a defined number dependent on the number of criteria being used. The Consistency Index is calculated by a formula created by Dr. Saaty. Fortunately, the plug-in I will be using determines the Consistency Ratio automatically.

11. I need to make a couple points regarding the AHP or any other DSS. First, these tools do not tell the decision-makers what to do. They only inform the decision making process. Ultimately, the decision is still in the hands of the decision makers. There is great value in breaking down a decision into its structural components as it requires the DMs to consider all components of the decision in relation to all other components. This process creates a more wholistic and circumspect decision-making process. In this case, the goal is to identify an unknown number of sites, perhaps 5-10. Once these sites, the DMs will have to evaluate these sites against a new set of criteria such as ability to acquire, cost to acquire, cost to restore, proximity to specific landscape features or constraints, and of course, human/social considerations. Other concerns include scheduling conflicts Groupthink which Irving Janis defined as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Dominant voice…..comparison fatigue. My expert panel, from all over the state, conflicting egos, and schedules. I will try to avoid these issues by using an online survey (surveymonkey.com) and then will be averaging the scores. I need to make a couple points regarding the AHP or any other DSS. First, these tools do not tell the decision-makers what to do. They only inform the decision making process. Ultimately, the decision is still in the hands of the decision makers. There is great value in breaking down a decision into its structural components as it requires the DMs to consider all components of the decision in relation to all other components. This process creates a more wholistic and circumspect decision-making process. In this case, the goal is to identify an unknown number of sites, perhaps 5-10. Once these sites, the DMs will have to evaluate these sites against a new set of criteria such as ability to acquire, cost to acquire, cost to restore, proximity to specific landscape features or constraints, and of course, human/social considerations. Other concerns include scheduling conflicts Groupthink which Irving Janis defined as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Dominant voice…..comparison fatigue. My expert panel, from all over the state, conflicting egos, and schedules. I will try to avoid these issues by using an online survey (surveymonkey.com) and then will be averaging the scores.

12. Why Potentially Restorable Wetlands in the Sheboygan River Basin?

13. Over 50% of the wetlands in WI have been lost and the SRB is no exception. With wetland loss, fish and wildlife habitat is also lost. There is also an increased risk of flooding and an increase in water quality issues. Additionally, the SRB is part of the great lakes ecosystem and the best way to restore the health of the great lakes is to restore the health of the rivers and flowing into them and the river basins connected to them. Over 50% of the wetlands in WI have been lost and the SRB is no exception. With wetland loss, fish and wildlife habitat is also lost. There is also an increased risk of flooding and an increase in water quality issues. Additionally, the SRB is part of the great lakes ecosystem and the best way to restore the health of the great lakes is to restore the health of the rivers and flowing into them and the river basins connected to them.

14. Why the Intent on Improving Blue Wing Teal Breeding Habitat? There are three duck species that regularly the nest and reproduce in Wisconsin – Mallards, wood ducks and blue wing teal.There are three duck species that regularly the nest and reproduce in Wisconsin – Mallards, wood ducks and blue wing teal.

15. Recent studies have shown that nest success is correlated to habitat type. Nests in upland grasslands had a success rate of 28%. Nests in wet meadows had a success rate of 6% and Nests in alfalfa fields had a success rate of 3%. Overall, nest success must remain at at least 15% to maintain a stable population. However, without wetlands for the ducks to pair off and perform courtship activities and then provide foraging habitat for the broods, there will be no nesting. Additionally, most of the predators (such as raptors, raccoons and skunks) that prey on hens, eggs, and chicks tend to be prevalent in or near forested areas. Therefore, the goal is to identify potential restorable wetlands in areas with significant amounts of upland grassland but less forested habitat. Recent studies have shown that nest success is correlated to habitat type. Nests in upland grasslands had a success rate of 28%. Nests in wet meadows had a success rate of 6% and Nests in alfalfa fields had a success rate of 3%. Overall, nest success must remain at at least 15% to maintain a stable population. However, without wetlands for the ducks to pair off and perform courtship activities and then provide foraging habitat for the broods, there will be no nesting. Additionally, most of the predators (such as raptors, raccoons and skunks) that prey on hens, eggs, and chicks tend to be prevalent in or near forested areas. Therefore, the goal is to identify potential restorable wetlands in areas with significant amounts of upland grassland but less forested habitat.

16. While listing as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need status does not provide legal protection such as the Endangered Species Act, habitat protection and restoration designed to enhance populations of these species are eligible for Wildlife grants. In short, improving habitat for these species is a primary component of the Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan. The JV created a list of “focal species” because habitat modeling of these species also accounts for other species (in this case other waterfowl species) with similar habitat requirements. Therefore, any benefits that a wetland restoration project provides to BWT, will theoretically also confer benefits to other species in the guild. These species includeWhile listing as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need status does not provide legal protection such as the Endangered Species Act, habitat protection and restoration designed to enhance populations of these species are eligible for Wildlife grants. In short, improving habitat for these species is a primary component of the Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan. The JV created a list of “focal species” because habitat modeling of these species also accounts for other species (in this case other waterfowl species) with similar habitat requirements. Therefore, any benefits that a wetland restoration project provides to BWT, will theoretically also confer benefits to other species in the guild. These species include

17. Related Projects

18. MRB – WDNR project that used a straightforward identification methodology. WWI, soils and landcover Sheboygan River Basin conservation Mapping tool – TNC used subwatersheds as the unit level of analysis generated a number of layers, including PRW based on the MRB projectMRB – WDNR project that used a straightforward identification methodology. WWI, soils and landcover Sheboygan River Basin conservation Mapping tool – TNC used subwatersheds as the unit level of analysis generated a number of layers, including PRW based on the MRB project

23. Questions?