Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Information Needs Assessment for Coastal and Marine Management and Policy: Ecosystem Services Under Changing Climatic, Land Use, and Demographic Conditions

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changing climatic, demographic, and land use conditions are projected to alter the provisioning of ecosystem services in estuarine, coastal, and nearshore marine ecosystems, necessitating mitigation and adaptation policies and management. The current paradigm of research efforts occurring in parallel to, rather than in collaboration with, decision makers will be insufficient for the rapid responses required to adapt to and mitigate for projected changing conditions. Here, we suggest a different paradigm: one where research begins by engaging decision makers in the identification of priority data needs (biophysical, economic, and social). This paper uses synthesized interview data to provide insight into the varied demands for scientific research as described by decision makers working on coastal issues in Oregon, USA. The findings highlight the need to recognize (1) the differing framing of ecosystem services by decision makers versus scientists; and (2) the differing data priorities relevant to inland versus coastal decision makers. The findings further serve to highlight the need for decision makers, scientists, and funders to engage in increased communication. This research is an important first step in advancing efforts toward evidence-based decision making in Oregon and provides a template for further research across the US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here “decision maker” refers to those individuals actively involved in designing and/or implementing legislative policy, procedures and protocols, and management programs.

References

  • Batker D, Swedeen P, Costanza R, de la Torre I, Boumans R, Bagstad K (2010) A new view of the Puget sound economy: the economic value of nature’s services in the Puget sound basin. Earth Economics, Tacoma

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Folke C (2000) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrill J, Senecah S (2001) Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environ Sci Policy 4:185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr E, Worth A (2001) The use of the telephone interview for research. Nurs Times Res 6(511):511–524. doi:10.1177/136140960100600107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan K, Shaw M, Cameron D, Underwood E, Daily G (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11):2138–2152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng A, Daniels S (2003) Examining the interaction between geographic scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of place-based collaborative planning. Forest Sci 49(6):841–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland M, Salinsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policymakers work together? J Epidemiol Commun Health 59:632–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily G, Matson P (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9455–9456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis E, Moseley C, Olsen C, Abrams J, Creighton J (2013) Diversity and dynamism of fire science and user needs. J Forest 111(2):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A (2007) Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci 2(20):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake J, Kontar Y, Rife G (eds) (2014) New trends in earth-science outreach and engagement: the nature of communication., Advances in natural and technological hazards researchSpringer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis T, Whittaker K, Shandas V, Mills AV, Graybill JK (2005) Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from Washington State. Ecol Soc 10(1):35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gareau B (2007) Ecological values amid local interests: natural resource conservation, social differentiation, and human survival in Honduras. Rural Sociol 72(2):244–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granek E, Polasky S, Kappel C, Reed D, Stoms D, Koch E, Kennedy C, Wolanski E (2010) Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 24(1):207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 update. Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, Nottingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):701–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karrer L, Beldia II P, Dennison B, Dominici A, Dutra G, English C, Gunawan T, Hastings J, Katz L, Kelty R, McField M, Nunez E, Obura D, Ortiz F, Quesada M, Sivo L, Stone G (2011) Science-to-action guidebook. Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia. www.science2action.org. Accessed 9 Nov 2014

  • Kerkhoff L (2005) Integrated research: concepts of connections in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8(2005):452–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach D, Parker A, Boesl M (2012) Assessing regional climate needs. Pacific Northwest Climate Decision Support Consortium

  • Martinez R, Rusch E (2012) Understanding the connections between coastal waters and ocean ecosystem services and human health: Basic services, valuation, and resiliency (workshop). Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine, Washington

  • Matso K, Becker M (2014) What can funders do to better link science with decisions? Case studies of coastal communities and climate change. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0347-2

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor M (2006) What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health 9(3):181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod K, Leslie H (eds) (2009) Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz D (2013) The language of conservation 2013: updated recommendations on how to communicate effectively to build support for conservation. Public Opinion Strategies, Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Ocean Council (U.S.) (2014) National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015

  • National Research Council (2012) Using science as evidence in public policy. Committee on the use of social science knowledge in public policy. In: Prewitt K, Schwandt TA, Straf ML (eds) Division of behavioral and social sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  • National Research Council (U.S.) (2013) An ecosystem services approach to assessing the impacts of the deepwater horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (2013) Science for an ocean nation: Update of the ocean research priorities plan. Washington, DC 2502. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ocean_research_plan_2013.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015

  • Novick G (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 31:391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (1990) Principle Policies of the Oregon ORMP. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_Policies.aspx. Accessed 8 Jan 2014

  • Pacific Coast Collaborative (2013) Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. http://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org/Documents/Pacific%20Coast%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015

  • Panetta L, Adams J, Claussen E, Guerrero C, Hayden M, Heal G, Kennel CF, Knowles T, Lubchenco J, Packard J, Parravano P, Pataki G, Riley J Jr., Rockerfeller D Jr., Rufe R Jr., Sullivan K, Ware M, White P (2003) America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change (A Report to the Nation). PEW Oceans Commission

  • Patton M (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Qual Soc Work 1(3):261–283. doi:10.1177/1473325002001003636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees S, Austen M, Attrill M, Rodwell L (2013) Incorporating indirect ecosystem services into marine protected area planning and management. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8(3):273–285. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.680500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regional Data Framework Action Coordination Team (2013) West Coast Governor’s Alliance on Ocean Health Regional Data Framework Action Coordination Team Work Plan. http://www.westcoastoceans.org/media/data_network_act/rdf_work_plan_final_3-12-13.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015

  • Rowe A, Lee K (2012) Linking knowledge with action: and approach to philanthropic funding of science for conservation. A report to the conservation and science program. David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokstad E (2005) Taking the pulse of earth’s life-support systems. Science 308(5718):41–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162(01):265–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas D (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27(237):237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN, Price EW, Maslin T (2010) Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecol Econ 69(5):978–987. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health (2013) WCGA Restructure Document. http://www.westcoastoceans.org/media/august2012excommmeeting/wcgalliance_restructure_final.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015

  • White C, Halpem S, Kappel C (2012) Ecosystem services tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. PNAS 109(12):4696–4701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf A (2004) Research strategies for policy relevance. Soc Policy J N Z 23:65–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Worm B, Barbier E, Beaumont N, Duffy J, Folke C, Halpern B, Jackson J, Lotze H, Micheli F, Palumbi S, Sala E, Selkoe K, Stachowicz J, Watson R (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng W, Shi H, Chen S, Zhu M (2009) Benefit and cost analysis of mariculture based on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68(6):1626–1632

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Oregon Sea Grant for support of this project. This manuscript has been inspired by work conducted by Michael Papenfus PhD of the US Environmental Protection Agency. His involvement and input is greatly appreciated. The authors appreciate input from Peter Ruggiero PhD and John Stevenson of the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Research Consortium in project development. Analysis of the interview data would not have been possible without the assistance of Max Nielsen-Pincus PhD from Portland State University, Environmental Science and Management. This manuscript resulted from the patience of the authors from differing backgrounds and disciplines and extensive and constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Science & Management, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Kaitlin A. Goldsmith & Elise F. Granek

  2. Sociology, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Amy Lubitow

Authors
  1. Kaitlin A. Goldsmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elise F. Granek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Lubitow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaitlin A. Goldsmith.

Appendix 1: Interview Questions Asked During Semi-Structured Interviews

Appendix 1: Interview Questions Asked During Semi-Structured Interviews

Interview biography questions:

  1. 1.

    What is your current occupation?

  2. 2.

    What is your background that has led you to your current position?

  3. 3.

    How long have you worked in this field?

  4. 4.

    What do you see as your role in policy making?

Interview substantive questions:

  1. 1.

    What do you see as the goods, services, and other benefits that the coast and ocean provide to the community and state?

  2. 2.

    Going forward, what are necessary policies for these coastal and estuarine goods, services, and benefits?

  3. 3.

    How does your agency/organization play a role in policy making? And can you provide some specific example of this?

  4. 4.

    What scientific information do you currently rely on to advocate for or push for policies that will preserve these services or benefits?

  5. 5.

    Where do you seek information to enhance coastal policy outcomes? What information do you lack access to that might better help you in your efforts to enhance coastal outcomes? Or, can you think of tools/resources/opportunities that would be useful to obtain needed information?

  6. 6.

    Can you discuss an instance where you have experienced barriers in working with scientists to increase the use of scientific data in policy making?

  7. 7.

    Are there specific times when you have experienced hindrances in policy/management implementation?

  8. 8.

    Can you explain an occasion in which you have been impacted by cross-agency barriers in policy/management implementation?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldsmith, K.A., Granek, E.F. & Lubitow, A. Information Needs Assessment for Coastal and Marine Management and Policy: Ecosystem Services Under Changing Climatic, Land Use, and Demographic Conditions. Environmental Management 56, 1502–1513 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0576-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0576-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation