USGS Science⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Valuation of rangeland ecosystem services

Economic valuation lends itself well to the anthropocentric orientation of ecosystem services. An economic perspective on ecosystems portrays them as natural assets providing a flow of goods and services valuable to individuals and society collectively. A few examples include the purification of drinking water, reduced risk from flooding and other extreme events, pollination of agricultural crops, climate regulation, and recreation opportunities from plant and animal habitat maintenance, among many others. Once these goods and services are identified and quantified, they can be monetized to complete the valuation process. The monetization of ecosystem goods and services (in the form of dollars) provides a common metric that allows for cross-comparison of attributes and evaluation of differing ecological scenarios. Complicating the monetization process is the fact that most of these goods and services are public and non-market in nature; meaning they are non-rival and non-exclusive and are typically not sold in a traditional market setting where monetary values are revealed. Instead, one must employ non-market valuation techniques, with primary valuation methods typically being very time and resource consuming, intimidating to non-economists, and often impractical. For these reasons, benefit transfer methods have gained popularity. This methodology harnesses the primary collection results of existing studies to make inferences about the economic values of non-market goods and services at an alternative policy site (in place and/or in time). For instance, if a primary valuation study on oak reestablishment on rangelands in southern California yielded a value of $30 per-acre associated with water regulation, this result can be transferred, with some adjustments, to say something about the value of an acre of oaks on rangelands in northern portions of the state. The economic valuation of rangeland ecosystem services has many roles. Economic values may be used as input into analyzing the costs and benefits associated with policies being proposed, or possibly already implemented. For example, with monetized values acting as a common metric, one could compare the 'benefits' of converting a rangeland ecosystem for commercial development (perhaps estimated at the market value of the developed land) with the foregone ecosystem service values (in addition to any land income lost) resulting from that land conversion. Similarly, ecosystem service values can be used to determine the level of return on an investment. rhis is a primary objective for private land conservation organizations who typically have very limited resources. Ecosystem service valuation can also have a role in damage assessments from incidents that require compensation such as oil spills. Additionally, valuation can be very informative when investigating regulatory programs that trade ecological assets such as wetland mitigation programs. Typically these programs are based simply on an 'acre for acre' criterion, and do not take into consideration varying welfare values associated with that ecosystem. Lastly, and most fundamental, ecosystem service valuation serves as a recognition tool for people of all backgrounds. Identifying and valuing ecosystem goods and services on rangelands brings to light the value these natural assets have to human welfare that often remain hidden do to their public and non-market attributes. This type of recognition is vital to the preservation of rangeland ecosystems in the future and the many ecological benefits they provide.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

Biodiversity —the variety of life on Earth—provides vital services that support and improve human health and well-being. Ecosystems, which are composed of living things that interact with the physical environment, provide numerous essential benefits to people. These benefits, termed ecosystem services, encompass four primary functions: provisioning materials, such as food and fiber; regulating critical parts of the environment, such as water quality and erosion control; providing cultural services, such as recreational opportunities and aesthetic value; and providing supporting services, such as nutrient cycling. Climate change poses many threats and potential disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as to the ecosystem services on which people depend. Building on the findings of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3), this chapter provides additional evidence that climate change is significantly impacting ecosystems and biodiversity in the United States. Mounting evidence also demonstrates that climate change is increasingly compromising the ecosystem services that sustain human communities, economies, and well-being. Both human and natural systems respond to change, but their ability to respond and thrive under new conditions is determined by their adaptive capacity, which may be inadequate to keep pace with rapid change. Our understanding of climate change impacts and the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems has improved since NCA3. The expected consequences of climate change will vary by region, species, and ecosystem type. Management responses are evolving as new tools and approaches are developed and implemented; however, they may not be able to overcome the negative impacts of climate change. Although efforts have been made since NCA3 to incorporate climate adaptation strategies into natural resource management, significant work remains to comprehensively implement climate-informed planning. This chapter presents additional evidence for climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services, reflecting increased confidence in the findings reported in NCA3. The chapter also illustrates the complex and interrelated nature of climate change impacts to biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they provide.

Report↗
USGS2016

A decision framework for identifying models to estimate forest ecosystem services gains from restoration

Restoring degraded forests and agricultural lands has become a global conservation priority. A growing number of tools can quantify ecosystem service tradeoffs associated with forest restoration. This evolving “tools landscape” presents a dilemma: more tools are available, but selecting appropriate tools has become more challenging. We present a Restoration Ecosystem Service Tool Selector (RESTS) framework that describes key characteristics of 13 ecosystem service assessment tools. Analysts enter information about their decision context, services to be analyzed, and desired outputs. Tools are filtered and presented based on five evaluative criteria: scalability, cost, time requirements, handling of uncertainty, and applicability to benefit-cost analysis. RESTS uses a spreadsheet interface but a web-based interface is planned. Given the rapid evolution of ecosystem services science, RESTS provides an adaptable framework to guide forest restoration decision makers toward tools that can help quantify ecosystem services in support of restoration.

Forest Ecosystems↗
USGS2011

USDA conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services in the Prairie Pothole Region

Implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) has resulted in the restoration of >2 million ha of wetland and grassland habitats in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). Restoration of habitats through these programs provides diverse ecosystem services to society, but few investigators have evaluated the environmental benefits achieved by these programs. We describe changes in wetland processes, functions, and ecosystem services that occur when wetlands and adjacent uplands on agricultural lands are restored through Farm Bill conservation programs. At the scale of wetland catchments, projects have had positive impacts on water storage, reduction in sedimentation and nutrient loading, plant biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat. However, lack of information on the geographic location of restored catchments relative to landscape‐level factors (e.g., watershed, proximity to rivers and lakes) limits interpretation of ecosystem services that operate at multiple scales such as floodwater retention, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat suitability. Considerable opportunity exists for the USDA to incorporate important landscape factors to better target conservation practices and programs to optimize diverse ecosystem services. Restoration of hydrologic processes within wetlands (e.g., hydroperiod, water level dynamics) also requires a better understanding of the influence of conservation cover composition and structure, and management practices that occur in uplands surrounding wetlands. Although conservation programs have enhanced delivery of ecosystem services in the PPR, the use of programs to provide long‐term critical ecosystem services is uncertain because when contracts (especially CRP) expire, economic incentives may favor conversion of land to crop production, rather than reenrollment. As demands for agricultural products (food, fiber, biofuel) increase, Farm Bill conservation programs will become increasingly important to ensure provisioning of ecosystem services to society, especially in agriculturally dominated landscapes. Thus, continued development and support for conservation programs legislated through the Farm Bill will require a more comprehensive understanding of wetland ecological services to better evaluate program achievements relative to conservation goals.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2020

Economic, land use, and ecosystem services impacts of Rwanda's Green Growth Strategy: An application of the IEEM+ESM platform

We develop and link the Integrated Economic-Environmental Modeling (IEEM) Platform to ecosystem services modeling (ESM). The IEEM+ESM Platform is an innovative decision-making framework for exploring complex public policy goals and elucidating synergies and trade-offs between alternative policy portfolios. The IEEM+ESM approach is powerful in its ability to shed light on (i) change in land use and ecosystem services driven by public policy and the supply and demand responses of businesses and households; and (ii) impacts on standard economic indicators of concern to Ministries of Finance such as gross domestic product and employment, as well as changes in wealth and ecosystem services. The IEEM+ESM approach is being adopted rapidly and by the end of 2020, IEEM+ESM Platforms will be implemented for about 25 countries. To demonstrate the insights generated by the IEEM+ESM approach, we apply it to the analysis of alternative green growth strategies in Rwanda, a country that has made strong progress in reducing poverty and enhancing economic growth in the last 15 years. The case of Rwanda is particularly compelling as it faces intense pressure on its natural capital base and ecosystem services, already with the highest population density in Africa, which is projected to double by 2050. In applying IEEM+ESM and comparing the outcomes of Rwanda’s green growth policies, increasing fertilization of agricultural crops shows the largest economic gains but also trade-offs in environmental quality reflected through higher nutrient export and reduced water quality. Combining crop fertilization with forest plantations better balances critical ecosystem services and their role in underpinning economic development as Rwanda progresses toward its target of middle-income status by 2035. This application to Rwanda’s green growth strategy demonstrates the value-added of the IEEM+ESM approach in generating results that speak to both economic outcomes and impacts on market and non-market ecosystem services.

Science of the Total Environment↗
USGS2012

Social values for ecosystem services (SolVES): Documentation and user manual, version 2.0

In response to the need for incorporating quantified and spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem services assessments, the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC), in collaboration with Colorado State University, developed a geographic information system (GIS) application, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). With version 2.0 (SolVES 2.0), RMGSC has improved and extended the functionality of SolVES, which was designed to assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ecosystem services. Social values such as aesthetics, biodiversity, and recreation can be evaluated for various stakeholder groups as distinguished by their attitudes and preferences regarding public uses, such as motorized recreation and logging. As with the previous version, SolVES 2.0 derives a quantitative, 10-point, social-values metric, the Value Index, from a combination of spatial and nonspatial responses to public attitude and preference surveys and calculates metrics characterizing the underlying environment, such as average distance to water and dominant landcover. Additionally, SolVES 2.0 integrates Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to generate more complete social value maps and to produce robust statistical models describing the relationship between the social values maps and explanatory environmental variables. The performance of these models can be evaluated for a primary study area, as well as for similar areas where primary survey data are not available but where social value mapping could potentially be completed using value-transfer methodology. SolVES 2.0 also introduces the flexibility for users to define their own social values and public uses, model any number and type of environmental variable, and modify the spatial resolution of analysis. With these enhancements, SolVES 2.0 provides an improved public domain tool for decisionmakers and researchers to evaluate the social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders regarding the tradeoffs among different ecosystem services in a variety of physical and social contexts ranging from forest and rangeland to coastal and marine.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies

Migratory species support ecosystem process and function in multiple areas, establishing ecological linkages between their different habitats. As they travel, migratory species also provide ecosystem services to people in many different locations. Previous research suggests there may be spatial mismatches between locations where humans use services and the ecosystems that produce them. This occurs with migratory species, between the areas that most support the species' population viability – and hence their long-term ability to provide services – and the locations where species provide the most ecosystem services. This paper presents a conceptual framework for estimating how much a particular location supports the provision of ecosystem services in other locations, and for estimating the extent to which local benefits are dependent upon other locations. We also describe a method for estimating the net payment, or subsidy, owed by or to a location that balances benefits received and support provided by locations throughout the migratory range of multiple species. The ability to quantify these spatial subsidies could provide a foundation for the establishment of markets that incentivize cross-jurisdictional cooperative management of migratory species. It could also provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts over the sustainable and equitable allocation of exploited migratory species.

Ecological Economics↗
USGS2014

Quantifying and valuing ecosystem services: An application of ARIES to the San Pedro River basin, USA

A large body of research exists that identifies and values ecosystem services - the benefits that ecosystems provide to humans (MA, 2005) - and their underlying ecological processes. However, the development of software decision support tools that integrate ecology, economics and geography that can be independently used within the public, private, academic and NGO sectors is a more recent phenomenon (Ruhl et al., 2007; Daily et al., 2009). Spurred by growing demand for more sophisticated analysis of the social and economic consequences of land management decisions, the US Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management (BLM) launched a pilot project with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to assess the usefulness and feasibility of ecosystem service assessment and valuation tools to provide inputs to decision-making. The project analysed ecosystem services in the US portion of the San Pedro River watershed, which includes the BLM-managed San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA), to improve the understanding of complex social and ecological relationships that transcend administrative divisions. The BLM manages some 99 million hectares, primarily in the western United States, and 283 million hectares of sub-surface mineral estate. BLM's multiple-use mission requires that it appropriately balance non-extractive uses such as habitat conservation, recreation and archaeological heritage protection and the extractive use of resources such as timber, oil and gas, coal, uranium, and other minerals.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning

Context Data for biophysically modeled and Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS)-derived cultural ecosystem services have potential to identify natural resource management synergies and conflicts, but have rarely been combined. Ecosystem service hot/coldspots generated using different methods vary in their spatial extent and connectivity, with important implications. Objectives We map biophysically modeled and PPGIS-derived cultural services for six U.S. national forests using six hot/coldspot delineation methods. We evaluate the implications of hotspot methods for management within and outside of designated wilderness areas. Methods We used the ARIES and SolVES modeling tools to quantify four biophysically modeled and 11 largely cultural ecosystem services for six national forests in Colorado and Wyoming, USA. We mapped hot/coldspots using two quantile methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of values), two area-based methods (top and bottom 10 and 33 % of area), and two statistical methods (Getis-Ord Gi* at α = 0.05 and 0.10 significance level) and compare results within and outside wilderness areas. Results Delineation methods vary in their degree of conservatism for hot/coldspot extents and spatial clustering. Hotspots were more common in wilderness areas in national forests near the more densely populated Colorado Front Range, while coldspots were more common in wilderness areas in more urban-distant forests in northwest Wyoming. Conclusions Statistical hotspot methods of intermediate conservatism (i.e., Getis-Ord Gi*, α = 0.10 significance) may be most useful for ecosystem service hot/coldspot mapping to inform landscape scale planning. We also found spatially explicit evidence in support of past findings about public attitudes toward wilderness areas.

Landscape Ecology↗
USGS2008

Ecosystem Services Derived from Wetland Conservation Practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region with an Emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs

Implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) has resulted in the restoration of approximately 2,200,000 ha (5,436,200 acres) of wetland and grassland habitats in the Prairie Pothole Region. These restored habitats are known to provide various ecosystem services; however, little work has been conducted to quantify and verify benefits on program lands (lands enrolled in the CRP and WRP) in agriculturally dominated landscapes of the Prairie Pothole Region. To address this need, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with the USDA Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service, initiated a study to develop and apply approaches to quantify changes in ecosystem services resulting from wetland restoration activities funded by the USDA. To accomplish this goal, the USGS conducted a comprehensive, stratified survey of 204 catchments (wetland and surrounding uplands contributing runoff to the wetland) in 1997 and 270 catchments in 2004 to gather data necessary for estimating various ecosystem services. In 1997 and 2004, the surveys included catchments with seasonal and semipermanent wetlands that were restored as part of USDA conservation programs, as well as nonprogram catchments in native prairie. Additionally, in 2004 data collection was expanded to include temporary wetlands for all treatments and nonprogram cropped catchments for all wetland classes: temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent. A key element in the sample design is that catchments span an alteration gradient ranging from highly altered, such as cropland, to minimally altered, such as native prairie. Therefore, we evaluated restoration programs by comparing changes in program (restored) catchments to nonprogram (cropland and native prairie) catchments. Information collected during both surveys included easily measured soil, vegetation, and morphological variables that were used to estimate the following ecosystem services: plant community quality and richness, carbon sequestration, floodwater storage, sediment and nutrient reduction, and potential wildlife habitat suitability. In this report, we evaluate the extent that these ecosystem services changed in restored wetlands relative to cropland and native prairie baselines. In most cases, our results indicate restoration activities funded by the USDA have positively influenced ecosystem services in comparison to a cropped wetland baseline; however, most benefits were only considered at a site-specific scale, and better quantification of off-site benefits associated with conservation programs will require detailed spatial data on all land areas enrolled in conservation programs.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2018

Ask not what nature can do for you: A critique of ecosystem services as a communication strategy

Given the urgent need to raise public awareness on biodiversity issues, we review the effectiveness of “ecosystem services” as a frame for promoting biodiversity conservation. Since its inception as a communications tool in the 1970s, the concept of ecosystem services has become pervasive in biodiversity policy. While the goal of securing ecosystem services is absolutely legitimate, we argue that it has had limited success as a vehicle for securing public interest and support for nature, which is crucial to securing long-term social mandates for protection. Emerging evidence suggests that focusing on ecosystem services rather than the intrinsic value of nature is unlikely to be effective in bolstering public support for nature conservation. Theory to guide effective communication about nature is urgently needed. In the mean-time, communicators should reflect on their objectives and intended audience and revisit the way nature is framed to ensure maximum resonance.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2015

Social Values for Ecosystem Services, version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0): documentation and user manual

The geographic information system (GIS) tool, S ocial V alues for E cosystem S ervices (SolVES), was developed to incorporate quantified and spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem service assessments. SolVES 3.0 continues to extend the functionality 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 their attitudes and preferences regarding public uses, such as motorized recreation and logging. As with previous versions, SolVES 3.0 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 3.0 is integrated with Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to generate more complete social-value maps and offer robust statistical models describing the relationship 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 methodology can be evaluated. SolVES 3.0 provides an improved 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 physical and social contexts ranging from forest and rangeland to coastal and marine.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases

Conserving and managing global natural capital requires an understanding of the complexity of flows of ecosystem services across geographic boundaries. Failing to understand and to incorporate these flows into national and international ecosystem assessments leads to incomplete and potentially skewed conclusions, impairing society’s ability to identify sustainable management and policy choices. In this paper, we synthesise existing knowledge and develop a conceptual framework for analysing interregional ecosystem service flows. We synthesise the types of such flows, the characteristics of sending and receiving socio-ecological systems, and the impacts of ecosystem service flows on interregional sustainability. Using four cases (trade of certified coffee, migration of northern pintails, flood protection in the Danube watershed, and information on giant pandas), we test the conceptual framework and show how an enhanced understanding of interregional telecouplings in socio-ecological systems can inform ecosystem service-based decision making and governance with respect to sustainability goals.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2022

Assessing conservation and management actions with ecosystem services better communicates conservation value to the public

Fish and wildlife populations are under unprecedented threats from changes in land use and climate. With increasing threats comes a need for an expanded constituency that can contribute to the public support and financial capital needed for habitat conservation and management. Using an ecosystem services approach can provide a framework for a more holistic accounting of conservation benefits. Our objective here is to provide a greater understanding of the role that taking an ecosystem services approach can have in expanding the public constituency that supports the use of financial capital required to conserve and manage the nation’s natural capital. To demonstrate a methodology and the usefulness of taking an ecosystem services approach when communicating the value of conserving and managing fish and wildlife habitats, we performed an evaluation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-owned Waterfowl Production Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, and easement lands (both wetland and grassland) in Stutsman County, North Dakota. We quantified amphibian habitat, grassland bird habitat, floral resources for pollinators, and carbon storage services under various scenarios of conservation. While we did not include all possible ecosystem services in our model, our case study shows how this process can provide a more complete picture of the collateral benefits of conservation directed primarily toward waterfowl. Using this ecosystem services approach, we documented marked losses in all services modeled if current conservation lands were developed for the production of agricultural crops. By having access to a more complete picture of benefits provided by conservation lands, decision makers can better communicate their value. By garnering greater public support through a more accurate accounting of societal benefits, conservation and management of dwindling natural capital may someday attain the same level of thought and consideration that is put into the conservation and management of the nation’s financial capital.

North Dakota↗
USGS2013

Climate change's impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US

Climate change alters the functions of ecological systems. As a result, the provision of ecosystem services and the well-being of people that rely on these services are being modified. Climate models portend continued warming and more frequent extreme weather events across the US. Such weather-related disturbances will place a premium on the ecosystem services that people rely on. We discuss some of the observed and anticipated impacts of climate change on ecosystem service provision and livelihoods in the US. We also highlight promising adaptive measures. The challenge will be choosing which adaptive strategies to implement, given limited resources and time. We suggest using dynamic balance sheets or accounts of natural capital and natural assets to prioritize and evaluate national and regional adaptation strategies that involve ecosystem services.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2013

Ecosystem services: developing sustainable management paradigms based on wetland functions and processes

In the late nineteenth century and twentieth century, there was considerable interest and activity to develop the United States for agricultural, mining, and many other purposes to improve the quality of human life standards and prosperity. Most of the work to support this development was focused along disciplinary lines with little attention focused on ecosystem service trade-offs or synergisms, especially those that transcended boundaries of scientific disciplines and specific interest groups. Concurrently, human population size has increased substantially and its use of ecosystem services has increased more than five-fold over just the past century. Consequently, the contemporary landscape has been highly modified for human use, leaving behind a fragmented landscape where basic ecosystem functions and processes have been broadly altered. Over this period, climate change also interacted with other anthropogenic effects, resulting in modern environmental problems having a complexity that is without historical precedent. The challenge before the scientific community is to develop new science paradigms that integrate relevant scientific disciplines to properly frame and evaluate modern environmental problems in a systems-type approach to better inform the decision-making process. Wetland science is a relatively new discipline that grew out of the conservation movement of the early twentieth century. In the United States, most of the conservation attention in the earlier days was on wildlife, but a growing human awareness of the importance of the environment led to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Concurrently, there was a broadening interest in conservation science, and the scientific study of wetlands gradually gained acceptance as a scientific discipline. Pioneering wetland scientists became formally organized when they formed The Society of Wetland Scientists in 1980 and established a publication outlet to share wetland research findings. In comparison to older and more traditional scientific disciplines, the wetland sciences may be better equipped to tackle today’s complex problems. Since its emergence as a scientific discipline, the study of wetlands has frequently required interdisciplinary and integrated approaches. This interdisciplinary/integrated approach is largely the result of the fact that wetlands cannot be studied in isolation of upland areas that contribute surface and subsurface water, solutes, sediments, and nutrients into wetland basins. However, challenges still remain in thoroughly integrating the wetland sciences with scientific disciplines involved in upland studies, especially those involved with agriculture, development, and other land-conversion activities that influence wetland hydrology, chemistry, and sedimentation. One way to facilitate this integration is to develop an understanding of how human activities affect wetland ecosystem services, especially the trade-offs and synergisms that occur when land-use changes are made. Used in this context, an understanding of the real costs of managing for a particular ecosystem service or groups of services can be determined and quantified in terms of reduced delivery of other services and in overall sustainability of the wetland and the landscapes that support them. In this chapter, we discuss some of the more salient aspects of a few common wetland types to give the reader some background on the diversity of functions that wetlands perform and the specific ecosystem services they provide to society. Wetlands are among the most complex ecosystems on the planet, and it is often difficult to communicate to a diverse public all of the positive services wetlands provide to mankind. Our goal is to help the reader develop an understanding that management options can be approached as societal choices where decisions can be made within a spatial and temporal context to identify trade-offs, synergies, and effects on long-term sustainability of wetland ecosystems. This will be especially relevant as we move into alternate climate futures where our portfolio of management options for mitigating damage to ecosystem function or detrimental cascading effects must be diverse and effective.

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

Assessing the vulnerability of human and biological communities to changing ecosystem services using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision support tool

In this paper we describe an application of a GIS-based multi-criteria decision support web tool that models and evaluates relative changes in ecosystem services to policy and land management decisions. The Santa Cruz Watershed Ecosystem Portfolio (SCWEPM) was designed to provide credible forecasts of responses to ecosystem drivers and stressors and to illustrate the role of land use decisions on spatial and temporal distributions of ecosystem services within a binational (U.S. and Mexico) watershed. We present two SCWEPM sub-models that when analyzed together address bidirectional relationships between social and ecological vulnerability and ecosystem services. The first model employs the Modified Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index (M-SEVI), which assesses community vulnerability using information from U.S. and Mexico censuses on education, access to resources, migratory status, housing situation, and number of dependents. The second, relating land cover change to biodiversity (provisioning services), models changes in the distribution of terrestrial vertebrate habitat based on multitemporal vegetation and land cover maps, wildlife habitat relationships, and changes in land use/land cover patterns. When assessed concurrently, the models exposed some unexpected relationships between vulnerable communities and ecosystem services provisioning. For instance, the most species-rich habitat type in the watershed, Desert Riparian Forest, increased over time in areas occupied by the most vulnerable populations and declined in areas with less vulnerable populations. This type of information can be used to identify ecological conservation and restoration targets that enhance the livelihoods of people in vulnerable communities and promote biodiversity and ecosystem health.

Santa Cruz watershed↗
USGS2019

Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models

Recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of public lands is increasing across a wide range of activities, highlighting the need to assess and adapt management to accommodate these uses. Despite a growing number of studies on mapping cultural ecosystem services, most are local-scale assessments that rely on costly and time-consuming primary data collection. As a result, the availability of spatial information on non-market values associated with cultural ecosystem services (social values) remains limited. Spatial function transfer, if it could be justified for social-value models, would expedite the development of social-value information and promote its more regular inclusion in ecosystem service assessments. We used survey data from six national forests in Colorado and Wyoming to explore the potential for transferring cultural ecosystem service models between forests and specifically to test the hypothesis that transfer performance increases with social-context similarity between transferring and receiving areas. Results confirm this relationship but fall just short of being able to predict with certainty when transferred models will meet the minimum performance criterion needed for defensible use by managers. Social values are highly variable and can be difficult to predict, but our results suggest that with the right combination of indicators spatial function transfer can become a defensible means of generating social-value information when primary data collection is not feasible.

Colorado, Wyoming↗