SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ecosystem Services”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making - Proceedings of a Workshop

The analytical framework for understanding ecosystem services in conservation, resource management, and development decisions is multidisciplinary, encompassing a combination of the natural and social sciences. This report summarizes a workshop on 'Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' which focused on the analytical process and on identifying research priorities for assessing ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies. Attendees discussed research directions and solutions to key challenges in developing the analytical framework. The discussion was divided into two sessions: (1) the measurement framework: quantities and values, and (2) the spatial framework: mapping and spatial relationships. This workshop was the second of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These three workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can be more effectively incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, 'Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In preconference workshop 1, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services be used more routinely and effectively in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and they identified some key challenges in developing the analytical framework. Preconference workshop 3, 'Developing an Institutional Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on October 30, 2008, in Albuquerque, NM; participants examined the relationship between the institutional framework and the use of ecosystem services in decision making.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Causes and consequences of ecosystem service regionalization in a coastal suburban watershed

The demand for ecosystem services and the ability of natural ecosystems to provide those services evolve over time as population, land use, and management practices change. Regionalization of ecosystem service activity, or the expansion of the area providing ecosystem services to a population, is a common response in densely populated coastal regions, with important consequences for watershed water and nitrogen (N) fluxes to the coastal zone. We link biophysical and historical information to explore the causes and consequences of change in ecosystem service activity—focusing on water provisioning and N regulation—from 1850 to 2010 in a coastal suburban watershed, the Ipswich River watershed in northeastern Massachusetts, USA. Net interbasin water transfers started in the late 1800s due to regionalization of water supply for use by larger populations living outside the Ipswich watershed boundaries, reaching a peak in the mid-1980s. Over much of the twentieth century, about 20 % of river runoff was diverted from reaching the estuary, with greater proportions during drought years. Ongoing regionalization of water supply has contributed to recent declines in diversions, influenced by socioecological feedbacks resulting from the river drying and fish kills. Similarly, the N budget has been greatly perturbed since the suburban era began in the 1950s due to food and lawn fertilizer imports and human waste release. However, natural ecosystems are able to remove most of this anthropogenic N, mitigating impacts on the coastal zone. We propose a conceptual model whereby the amount and type of ecosystem services provided by coastal watersheds in urban regions expand and contract over time as regional population expands and ecosystem services are regionalized. We hypothesize that suburban watersheds can be hotspots of ecosystem service sources because they retain sufficient ecosystem function to still produce services that meet increasing demand from the local population and nearby urban centers. Historical reconstruction of ecosystem service activity provides a perspective that may help to better understand coupled human–natural system processes and lead to more sustainable management of coastal ecosystems.

Massachusetts↗

USGS2018

Integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services concepts to improve natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities

Executive Summary—Overview Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans. This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts. Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty. Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually. Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions: How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation? How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice? What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services? And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Circular↗

USGS2023

Considering pollinators' ecosystem services in the remediation and restoration of contaminated lands: Overview of research and its gaps

The concept of ecosystem services provides a useful framework for understanding how people are affected by changes to the natural environment, such as when a contaminant is introduced (e.g., oil spills, hazardous substance releases) or, conversely, when contaminated lands are remediated and restored. Pollination is one example of an important ecosystem service; pollinators play a critical role in any functioning terrestrial ecosystem. Other studies have suggested that consideration of pollinators' ecosystem services could lead to better remediation and restoration outcomes. However, the associated relationships can be complex, and evaluation requires synthesis from numerous disciplines. In this article, we discuss the possibilities for considering pollinators and their ecosystem services when planning remediation and restoration of contaminated lands. To inform the discussion, we introduce a general conceptual model of how pollinators and the ecosystem services associated with them could be affected by contamination in the environment. We review the literature on the conceptual model components, including contaminant effects on pollinators and the direct and indirect ecosystem services provided by pollinators, and identify information gaps. Though increased public interest in pollinators likely reflects increasing recognition of their role in providing many important ecosystem services, our review indicates that many gaps in understanding—about relevant natural and social systems—currently impede the rigorous quantification and evaluation of pollinators' ecosystem services required for many applications, such as in the context of natural resource damage assessment. Notable gaps include information on non-honeybee pollinators and on ecosystem services beyond those benefitting the agricultural sector. We then discuss potential research priorities and implications for practitioners. Focused research attention on the areas highlighted in this review holds promise for increasing the possibilities for considering pollinators' ecosystem services in the remediation and restoration of contaminated lands.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗

USGS2012

Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona

This report details the findings of the Bureau of Land Management–U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot Study. This project evaluated alternative methods and tools that quantify and value ecosystem services, and it assessed the tools’ readiness for use in the Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking process. We tested these tools on the San Pedro River watershed in northern Sonora, Mexico, and southeast Arizona. The study area includes the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which has been a focal point for conservation activities and scientific research in recent decades. We applied past site-specific primary valuation studies, value transfer, the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) models to value locally important ecosystem services for the San Pedro River watershed—water, carbon, biodiversity, and cultural values. We tested these approaches on a series of scenarios to evaluate ecosystem service changes and the ability of the tools to accommodate scenarios. A suite of additional tools were either at too early a stage of development to run, were proprietary, or were place-specific tools inappropriate for application to the San Pedro River watershed. We described the strengths and weaknesses of these additional ecosystem service tools against a series of evaluative criteria related to their usefulness for Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking. Using these tools, we quantified gains or losses of ecosystem services under three categories of scenarios: urban growth, mesquite management, and water augmentation. These results quantify tradeoffs and could be useful for decisionmaking within Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Results are accompanied by a relatively high level of uncertainty associated with model outputs, valuation methods, and discount rates applied. Further guidance on representing uncertainty and applying uncertain results in decisionmaking would benefit both tool developers and those offices in using ecosystem services to compare management tradeoffs. Decisionmakers and Bureau of Land Management managers at the State-, district-, and field-office level would also benefit from continuing model improvements, training, and guidance on tool use that can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of the Interior. Tradeoffs were identified in the level of effort needed to parameterize and run tools and the amount and quality of information they provide to the decision process. We found the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, Ecosystem Services Review, and United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Services Toolkit to be immediately feasible for application by the Bureau of Land Management, given proper guidance on their use. It is also feasible for the Bureau of Land Management to use the InVEST model, but in early 2012 the process of parameterizing the model required resources and expertise that are unlikely to be available in most Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Application of past primary valuation is feasible, but developing new primary-valuation studies is too time consuming for regular application. Value transfer approaches (aside from the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit) are best applied carefully on the basis of guidelines described in this report, to reduce transfer error. The ARIES model can provide useful information in regions modeled in the past (Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington), but it lacks some features that will improve its usability, such as a generalized model that could be applied anywhere in the United States. Eleven other tools described in this report could become useful as the tools more fully develop, in high-profile cases for which additional resources are available for tool application or in case-study regions where place-specific models have already been developed. To improve the value of these tools in decisionmaking, we suggest scientific needs that agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey can help meet—for instance, development and support of data archives. Such archives could greatly reduce resource needs and improve the reliability and consistency of results. Given the rapid state of evolution in the field, periodic follow-up studies on ecosystem services tools would help to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies are kept up to date on new tools and features that bring ecosystem services closer to readiness for use in regular decisionmaking.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2014

Assessing the value of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades restoration: an ecosystem service approach

This study identifies a full range of ecosystem services that could be affected by a restoration project in the central Everglades and monetizes the economic value of a subset of these services using existing data. Findings suggest that the project will potentially increase many ecosystem services that have considerable economic value to society. The ecosystem services monetized within the scope of this study are a subset of the difference between the future-with the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) and the future-without CEPP, and they totaled ~ $1.8 billion USD at a 2.5% discount rate. Findings suggest that the use of ecosystem services in project planning and communications may require acknowledgment of the difficulty of monetizing important services and the limitations associated with using only existing data and models. Results of this study highlight the need for additional valuation efforts in this region, focused on those services that are likely to be impacted by restoration activities but were notably challenging to value in this assessment due to shortages of data.

Florida↗

USGS2011

Effects of conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Restoration of wetland ecosystems is an important priority for many state and federal agencies, as well as nongovernmental conservation organizations. The historic conversion of wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) has resulted in large‐scale implementation of a variety of conservation practices designed to restore and enhance wetland ecosystem services. As a consequence, the effectiveness of multiple approaches in achieving desired conservation goals varies depending on site conditions, practices employed, and specific ecosystem services. We reviewed government agency programs and the scientific literature to evaluate the effects of conservation practices on wetlands in the MAV. There were 68 different conservation practices applied to a combined total of 1.27 million ha in the MAV between 2000 and 2006. These practices fell into two categories: Wetland Conservation Practices and Upland Conservation Practices. Sixteen different practices accounted for nearly 92% of the total area, and only three of these are directly related to wetlands: Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management, Wetland Restoration, and Riparian Forest Buffer. All three of these practices involve reforestation, primarily planting hard‐mast species such as Quercus sp. and Carya sp. These plantings are likely to develop into even‐aged stands of low tree diversity with little structural heterogeneity, which will impact future wildlife habitat. Since hydrology is a critical driver of wetland processes, the ability of a given conservation practice to restore wetland hydrology is a key determinant of how well it can restore ecosystem services. However, there is little to no follow‐up monitoring of projects, so it is difficult to know how much variability exists for any given practice or the efficacy of specific practices. Conservation practices that only plant trees without reconnecting the wetland to the hydrologic and nutrient fluxes in the watershed may restore some wildlife habitat but will do little for regulating services such as nitrogen retention. While conservation practices have overall beneficial effects on many ecosystem services in the MAV, the most effective are those with a direct link between the actions associated with a given practice and controls over ecosystem processes and services.

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missou↗

USGS2014

Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social well-being of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use of science in public decision making to inform investment in green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas. The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks plan, establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The Green City, Clean Waters initiative, the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green infrastructure. The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership programs: America’s Great Outdoors, initiated to promote conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways. A second goal of the symposium was to advance a research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations. There is also need for additional focused research toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater understanding of how best to inform local decision making in this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Approaching these local and regional plans from a holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future research.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2014

A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing

Despite recent interest, ecosystem services are not yet fully incorporated into private and public decisions about natural resource management. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are among the most challenging of services to include because they comprise complex ecological and social properties and processes that make them difficult to measure, map or monetize. Like others, CES are vulnerable to landscape changes and unsustainable use. To date, the sustainability of services has not been adequately addressed and few studies have considered measures of service capacity and demand simultaneously. To facilitate sustainability assessments and management of CES, our study objectives were to (1) develop a spatially explicit framework for mapping the capacity of ecosystems to provide freshwater recreational fishing, an important cultural service, (2) map societal demand for freshwater recreational fishing based on license data and identify areas of potential overuse, and (3) demonstrate how maps of relative capacity and relative demand could be interfaced to estimate sustainability of a CES. We mapped freshwater recreational fishing capacity at the 12-digit hydrologic unit-scale in North Carolina and Virginia using a multi-indicator service framework incorporating biophysical and social landscape metrics and mapped demand based on fishing license data. Mapping of capacity revealed a gradual decrease in capacity eastward from the mountains to the coastal plain and that fishing demand was greatest in urban areas. When comparing standardized relative measures of capacity and demand for freshwater recreational fishing, we found that ranks of capacity exceeded ranks of demand in most hydrologic units, except in 17% of North Carolina and 5% of Virginia. Our GIS-based approach to view freshwater recreational fishing through an ecosystem service lens will enable scientists and managers to examine (1) biophysical and social factors that foster or diminish cultural ecosystem services delivery, (2) demand for cultural ecosystem services relative to their capacity, and (3) ecological pressures like potential overuse that affect service sustainability. Ultimately, we expect such analyses to inform decision-making for freshwater recreational fisheries and other cultural ecosystem services.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2012

Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystems services

This study evaluated the use of an Internet-based public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) to identify ecosystem services in Grand County, Colorado. Specific research objectives were to examine the distribution of ecosystem services, identify the characteristics of participants in the study, explore potential relationships between ecosystem services and land use and land cover (LULC) classifications, and assess the methodological strengths and weakness of the PPGIS approach for identifying ecosystem services. Key findings include: (1) Cultural ecosystem service opportunities were easiest to identify while supporting and regulatory services most challenging, (2) participants were highly educated, knowledgeable about nature and science, and have a strong connection to the outdoors, (3) some LULC classifications were logically and spatially associated with ecosystem services, and (4) despite limitations, the PPGIS method demonstrates potential for identifying ecosystem services to augment expert judgment and to inform public or environmental policy decisions regarding land use trade-offs.

Society and Natural Resources↗

USGS2022

Development of an online reporting format to facilitate the inclusion of ecosystem services into Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program reports

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. The Secretary of Agriculture is required to submit an annual report to Congress on Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreements that, among other things, reports on the progress made towards fulfilling commitments outlined in the agreements. The U.S. Geological Survey developed an online reporting form designed to ensure that consistent information is submitted to the Farm Service Agency from Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State partners. Combined with the automated importation of text from partner-provided forms to word-processing documents, individual State reports and annual reports to Congress can now be produced efficiently and in a standardized format. Use of a standardized reporting format will also assist the Farm Service Agency in collecting information needed to support ecosystem service quantifications that go beyond the quantifications required from partners to document progress towards meeting the specific purposes and objectives identified in each agreement. Addition of these overarching conservation effect quantifications builds upon past ecosystem services modeling efforts based on the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs suite of open-source software models; these offer a spatially explicit means to quantify additional ecosystem services across diverse partners in a consistent manner. Data sources are currently available to provide much of the information needed to run these models and complete simulations that would facilitate the quantification and reporting of the societal values of conservation actions taken under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It is the aim of this report to provide the information needed to move towards widescale monitoring of the Nation’s ecosystem services in a natural accounting framework, similar to the framework used to value financial and human capital.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Social Values for Ecosystem Services, version 4.0 (SolVES 4.0)—Documentation and user manual

The geographic information system tool, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES), was developed to incorporate quantified and spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem service assessments. SolVES 4.0 provides an open-source version of SolVES, which was designed to assess, map, and quantify the social values of ecosystem services. Social values—the perceived, nonmarket values the public ascribes to ecosystem services, particularly cultural services, such as aesthetics and recreation—can be evaluated for various stakeholder groups. These groups are distinguishable by factors such as their attitudes and preferences regarding public uses (for example, motorized recreation and logging). As with previous versions, SolVES 4.0 derives a quantitative 10-point, social-values metric—the value index—from a combination of spatial and nonspatial responses to public value and preference surveys. The tool also calculates metrics characterizing the underlying environment, such as average distance to water and dominant landcover. SolVES 4.0 has been developed with Python using a QGIS user interface and a PostgreSQL database for required data. SolVES is integrated with Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to generate more complete social-value maps and offer robust statistical models describing the relation between the value index and explanatory environmental variables. A model’s goodness of fit to a primary study area and its potential performance in transferring social values to similar areas using value-transfer methods can be evaluated. SolVES 4.0 provides an improved open-source, public-domain tool for decision makers and researchers to evaluate the social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders regarding the tradeoffs among ecosystem services in a variety of biophysical and social contexts including mountain, forest, coastal, riparian, agricultural, and urban environments around the globe.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2024

Current and future potential ecosystem services of the Nisqually River Delta: An assessment approach for Puget Sound estuaries and USFWS coastal refuges

The Nisqually River Delta, located in South Puget Sound, contains a rich mosaic of different coastal habitat types. The goal of this project was to quantify ecosystem services — benefits that wildlife or ecosystems provide to people — that are priorities for the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, and the surrounding communities. We modeled how change in these habitats from sea level rise (SLR) or management activities like restoration could affect ecosystem services in the future. We focused on changes to three main ecosystem services: soil carbon accumulation, birdwatching visitation, and juvenile Chinook salmon growth rates, which served as a proxy for fishery production. A habitat and carbon model projected that after 100 years, most high salt marsh would remain with < 1m SLR, but a substantial area would convert to low salt marsh and mudflat with ≥ 1m SLR. Total carbon accumulation would plateau or decline with ≥ 1m SLR, yet economic value of carbon accumulation would continue to rise over time, suggesting that the value of this ecosystem service is resilient to SLR. Birdwatching visitation was greatest in winter months and was positively related to area of forested wetland, emergent wetland, aquatic vegetation bed (e.g., eelgrass) and mudflat and open access (areas freely accessible to the public). Increases in forested wetland may lead to greater increases in visitation compared to other habitat types. All three ecosystem services increased with increases in forested wetland and emergent wetland, and tradeoffs among services occurred with increases in aquatic vegetation bed and mudflat. While both prey-rich salt marshes and eelgrass meadows facilitate salmon growth, loss of salt marsh led to declines in juvenile salmon weight. In conversation with USFWS managers, we identified practical ways to incorporate ecosystem services into adaptive management frameworks that support climate adaptation decision making. Our study illustrated how accounting for ecosystem services helps managers make decisions that greatly benefit wildlife and people, communicate the societal value of decisions, and increase local engagement and participation.

Washington↗

USGS2013

Baseline data for evaluating development trajectory and provision of ecosystem services of created fringing oyster reefs in Vermilion Bay, Louisiana

Understanding the time frame in which ecosystem services (that is, water quality maintenance, shoreline protection, habitat provision) are expected to be provided is important when restoration projects are being designed and implemented. Restoration of three-dimensional shell habitats in coastal Louisiana and elsewhere presents a valuable and potentially self-sustaining approach to providing shoreline protection, enhancing nekton habitat, and providing water quality maintenance. As with most restoration projects, the development of expected different ecosystem services often occurs over varying time frames, with some services provided immediately and others taking longer to develop. This project was designed initially to compare the provision and development of ecosystem services by created fringing shoreline reefs in subtidal and intertidal environments in Vermilion Bay, Louisiana. Specifically, the goal was to test the null hypothesis that over time, the oyster recruitment and development of a sustainable oyster reef community would be similar at both intertidal and subtidal reef bases, and these sustainable reefs would in time provide similar shoreline stabilization, nekton habitat, and water quality services over similar time frames. Because the ecosystem services hypothesized to be provided by oyster reefs reflect long-term processes, fully testing the above-stated null hypothesis requires a longer-time frame than this project allowed. As such, this project was designed to provide the initial data on reef development and provision of ecosystem services, to identify services that may develop immediately, and to provide baseline data to allow for longer-term follow up studies tracking reef development over time. Unfortunately, these initially created reef bases (subtidal, intertidal) were not constructed as planned because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010, which resulted in reef duplicates being created 6 months apart. Further confounding the project were additional construction and restoration projects along the same shorelines which occurred between 2011 and June 2012. Because of constant activity near and around the reefs and continuing construction, development trajectories could not be compared among reef types at this time. This report presents the data collected at the sites over 3 years (2010–2012), describing only conditions and trends. In addition, these data provide an extensive and detailed dataset documenting initial conditions and initial ecosystem changes which will prove valuable in future data collection and analyses of reef development at this site. Data collection characterized the local water quality conditions (salinity, temperature, total suspended sediments, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a), adjacent marsh vegetation, soils, and shoreline position along the project shoreline at Vermilion Bay. During the study, marsh vegetation and soil characteristics were similar across the study area and did not change over time. Shoreline movement indicated shoreline loss at all sites, which varied by reefs. Water quality conditions followed expected seasonal patterns for this region, and no significant nonseasonal changes were measured throughout the study period. Despite oyster recruitment in fall 2010 and 2011, few if any oysters survived from the 2010 year class to 2012. At the last sampling of this project, some oysters recruited in fall 2011 survived through 2012, resulting in an on-reef density of 18.3 ± 2.1 individuals per square meter (mean size: 85.6 ± 2.2 millimeters). Because project goals were to compare reef development and provision of ecosystem services over time, as well as many of the processes identified for monitoring reflect long-term processes, results and data are presented only qualitatively, and trends or observations should be interpreted cautiously at this point. Measurable system responses to reef establishment require more time than was available for this study. These data provide a valuable baseline that can be ultimately used to help inform site selections for future restoration projects as well to further investigate the development trajectories of ecosystem provision of created reefs in this region.

Louisiana↗

USGS2014

Temporal variation in development of ecosystem services from oyster reef restoration

Restoration ecology relies heavily on ecosystem development theories that generally assume development of fully functioning natural systems over time, but often fail to identify the time-frame required for provision of desired functions, or acknowledge different pathways of functional development. In estuaries, a decline of overall habitat quality and functioning has led to significant efforts to restore critical ecosystem services, recently through the creation and restoration of oyster reefs. Oyster reef restoration generally occurs with goals of (1) increasing water quality via filtration through sustainable oyster recruitment, (2) stabilizing shorelines, and (3) creating and enhancing critical estuarine habitat for fish and invertebrates. We restored over 260 m 2 of oyster reef habitat in coastal Louisiana and followed the development and provision of these ecosystem services from 2009 through 2012. Oysters recruited to reefs immediately, with densities of oysters greater than 75 mm exceeding 80 ind m −2 after 3 years, and provision of filtration rates of 1002 ± 187 L h −1 m −2 ; shoreline stabilization effects of the created reefs were minimal over the three years of monitoring, with some evidence of positive shoreline stabilization during higher wind/energy events only; increased nekton abundance of resident, but not larger transient fish was immediately measurable at the reefs, however, this failed to increase through time. Our results provide critical insights into the development trajectories of ecosystem services provided by restored oyster reefs, as well as the mechanisms mediating these changes. This is critical both ecologically to understand how and where a reef thrives, and for policy and management to guide decision-making related to oyster reef restoration and the crediting and accounting of ecosystem services.

Louisiana↗

USGS2012

Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia

Coastal ecosystems are increasingly faced with human impacts. To better understand these changing conditions, biophysical and economic values of nature have been used to prioritize spatial planning efforts and ecosystem-based management of human activities. Less is known, however, about how to characterize and represent non-material values in decision-making. We collected on-site and mailback survey data ( n = 209), and analyzed these data using the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) GIS application to incorporate measures of social value and natural resource conditions on Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Our objectives in this paper are to: 1) determine the spatial distribution and point density of social values for ecosystem services; 2) examine the relationship between social values and natural resource conditions; and 3) compare social value allocations between two subgroups of outdoor recreationists. Results suggest that high priority areas exist on Hinchinbrook's land and seascapes according to the multiple values assigned to places by outdoor recreationists engaged in consumptive (e.g., fishing) and non-consumptive (e.g., hiking) activities. We examine statistically significant spatial clustering across two subgroups of the survey population for three value types that reflect Recreation, Biological Diversity, and Aesthetic qualities. The relationship between the relative importance of social values for ecosystem services and spatially-defined ecological data is explored to guide management decision-making in the context of an island national park setting.

Hinchinbrook Island National Park↗

USGS2014

Validating a method for transferring social values of ecosystem services between public lands in the Rocky Mountain region

With growing pressures on ecosystem services, social values attributed to them are increasingly important to land management decisions. Social values, defined here as perceived values the public ascribes to ecosystem services, particularly cultural services, are generally not accounted for through economic markets or considered alongside economic and ecological values in ecosystem service assessments. Social-values data can be elicited through public value and preference surveys; however, limitations prevent them from being regularly collected. These limitations led to our three study objectives: (1) demonstrate an approach for applying benefit transfer, a nonmarket-valuation method, to spatially explicit social values; (2) validate the approach; and (3) identify potential improvements. We applied Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to survey data for three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Social-value maps and models were generated, describing relationships between the maps and various combinations of environmental variables. Models from each forest were used to estimate social-value maps for the other forests via benefit transfer. Model performance was evaluated relative to the locally derived models. Performance varied with the number and type of environmental variables used, as well as differences in the forests' physical and social contexts. Enhanced metadata and better social-context matching could improve model transferability.

Colorado;Wyoming↗

USGS2019

Valuation of the flood attenuation ecosystem service in Difficult Run, VA, USA

Floodplains and riparian wetlands provide several ecosystem services that directly benefit people. We present a methodology for valuing the flood attenuation ecosystem service in Difficult Run, a suburban watershed with extensive natural floodplains in northern Virginia. High-resolution lidar-derived data were combined with GIS modeling techniques to produce estimates of flood inundation. We combined the modeled estimates with parcel-level property and primary economic data using a baseline and a counterfactual scenario to estimate the magnitude of flood attenuation and the associated value of the ecosystem service. Our framework brings new models and data to look at floodplains and an alternative land surface scenario in a way that has not previously been done. Annualized avoided property losses totaled $42,184 in the baseline scenario and $115,596 in the counterfactual scenario for the combined 200-, 100-, 50-, 20-, 10-, and 5-year flood events. We estimate the total annualized value of the flood attenuation ecosystem service in Difficult Run is $73,412, which is $77 per hectare of floodplain area and is consistent with similar valuation studies of floodplains. The framework presented here is not specific to the study area and could be deployed at larger spatial areas in other locations. Our methods may better inform land use decision making on the impacts of development in and surrounding floodplain areas.

Virginia↗