Accuracy, Uncertainty and Biases in the Human Footprint Mapping in British Columbia
My Session Status
Human activities have disturbed biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecological processes over the last century. Given the growing trends of habitat loss and biodiversity decline, understanding patterns of human pressures has become a crucial element of conservation planning. In this context, cumulative pressure mapping is used to quantify the extent and intensity of multiple pressures and their combined effects.Despite the integration of spatially explicit information in cumulative pressure mapping, several aspects remain underexplored. These include determining how many layers are needed to accurately depict human pressures, assessing the uncertainty of intensity scores, and understanding the sensitivity of the cumulative function. Our research investigated how the number of pressures mapped affects the accuracy of outcomes.
In the Canadian province of British Columbia, we applied the Human Footprint Index (HF), a methodology for cumulative pressure mapping. By conducting numerous combinations of 16 input layers and using the bootstrap technique, we identified the key layers necessary for accurately representing human pressures. Additionally, we addressed the uncertainty of intensity scores, as cumulative pressure mapping depends on expert knowledge, which can be subject to biases and uncertainties. Our research compared the most common cumulative functions associated with additive and antagonistic models. Supported by a comprehensive validation process, we examined how variations in intensity scores and cumulative functions influence the HF outcome.