Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accounting for ecosystem services in environmental decision making is an emerging research topic. Modern frameworks for ecosystem services assessment emphasize evaluating the social benefits of ecosystems, in terms of who benefits and by how much, to aid in comparing multiple courses of action. Structured methods that use decision analytic-approaches are emerging for the practice of ecological restoration. In this article, we combine ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to estimate and evaluate measures of the potential benefits of ecological restoration with a case study in the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island, USA. We partnered with a local watershed management organization to analyze dozens of candidate wetland restoration sites for their abilities to supply five ecosystem services—flood water retention, scenic landscapes, learning opportunities, recreational opportunities, and birds. We developed 22 benefit indicators related to the ecosystem services as well as indicators for social equity and reliability that benefits will sustain in the future. We applied conceptual modeling and spatial analysis to estimate indicator values for each candidate restoration site. Lastly, we developed a decision support tool to score and aggregate the values for the organization to screen the restoration sites. Results show that restoration sites in urban areas can provide greater social benefits than sites in less urban areas. Our research approach is general and can be used to investigate other restoration planning studies that perform ecosystem services assessment and fit into a decision-making process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These tools are available for download at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/rapid-benefit-indicators-rbi-approach

  2. https://coast.noaa.gov/dataregustry/search/collection/info/sovi

References

  • Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Milton SJ, Maitre DL, Esler KJ, Limouzin A, Fontaine C, de Wit MP, Mugido W, Prinsloo P, van der Elst L, Lederer N (2010) Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000–2008) in restoration ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restor Ecol 18:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagstad K, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:e27–e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balvanera P, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Ricketts RH, Baily SA, Kark S, Kremen C, Pereira H (2001) Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science 291:2047. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5511.2047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bousquin J, Hychka K, Mazzotta M (2015) Benefit indicators for flood regulation services of wetlands: a modeling approach. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/191

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle MW, Shields FG (2012) Compensatory mitigation for streams under the clean water act: reassessing science and redirecting policy. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:494–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00631.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (2001) Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landsc Urban Plan 56:35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00164-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golet FC, Myshrall DHA, Miller NA, Bradley MP (2003) Wetland restoration plan for the Woonasquatucket River watershed, Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons, United Kingdom

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffnew O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Steffen W, Glaser G, Kanie N, Noble I (2013) Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero A, Shoo L, Iacona G, Standish RJ, Catterall CP, Rumpff L, de Bie K, White Z, Matzek V, Wilson KA (2017) Using structured decision-making to set restoration objectives when multiple values and preferences exist. Restor Ecol 25:858–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy M, Secchi S (2016) A comparative analysis of ecosystem service valuation decision support tools for wetland restoration. Association of State Wetland Managers, Windham, Maine

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubacek K, Kronenberg J (2013) Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 109:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hychka K, Druschke CG (2017) Adaptive management of urban ecosystem restoration: learning from restoration managers in Rhode Island, USA. Society & Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1315653

  • Keeney RL (2004) Making better decision makers. Decis Anal 1:193–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1040.0009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King DM, Wainger LA, Bartoldus CC, Wakeley JS (2000) Expanding wetland assessment procedures: linking indices of wetland function with services and values. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kozak JP, Piazza BP (2014) A proposed process for applying a structured decision-making framework to restoration planning in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana, USA. Restor Ecol 23:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer P, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, McPhearson T (2015) Advancing the frontier of urban ecosystem services research. Ecosyst Serv 12:149–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey RT (2016) Keeping science and scientists credible: avoid stealth policy advocacy. Bull Ecol Soc Aust 46:14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Langemeyer J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D, Scheuer S, Elmqvist T (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Environ Sci & Policy 61:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larondelle N, Haase D (2013) Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol Indic 29:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons JE, Runge MC, Laskowski HP, Kendall WL (2008) Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J Wildl Manag 72:1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin DM (2017) Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restor Ecol 25:668–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin DM, Mazzotta M (2018) Non-monetary valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis: Sensitivity of additive aggregation methods to scaling and compensation assumptions. Ecosyst Serv 29:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin J, Runge MC, Nichols JD, Lubow B, Kendall WL (2009) Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify threshold for conservation and management. Ecol Appl 19:1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0255.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 184:229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta M, Bousquin J, Ojo C, Hychka K, Druschke CG, Berry W, McKinney R (2016) Assessing the benefits of wetland restoration: a rapid benefit indicators approach for decision makers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-16/084

  • McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016) International standards for the practice of ecological restoration – including principles and key concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller NA, Golet FC (2001) Development of a statewide freshwater wetland restoration strategy. Final research report prepared for RI DEM Office of Water Resources and U.S. EPA Region 1. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden AE, Innes JL (2009) Application of structured decision making to an assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation options for sustainable forest management. Ecol Soc 14:11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art11/

  • Olander L, Urban D, Johnston RJ, Van Houtven G, Kagan J (2016) Proposal for increasing consistency when incorporating ecosystem services into decision making. National Ecosystem Services Partnership: Policy Brief 16-01. Durham, NC: Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/nesp_pb_16-01.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2018

  • Olander LP, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire LA, Polasky S, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger L (2018) Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecol Indic 85:1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani FS, Bunker DE, Burkill P, Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Fuhrman JA, Jaksic FM, Kawabata Z, Kinzig A, Mace GM, Mooney H, Prieur-Richard AH, Tschirhart J, Weisser W (2011) Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 9:512–520. https://doi.org/10.1890/100212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner SM, McKenzie E, Ricketts TH (2016) Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:1760–1765. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502452113

  • Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Progress Phys Geogr 35:575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311423172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarikoski H, Mustajoki J, Barton DN, Geneletti D, Langemeyer J, Gomez-Bahhethun E, Marttunen M, Antunes P, Keune H, Santos R (2016) Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 22:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW, Cook CN, Pressey RL, Pullin AS, Runge MC, Salafsky N, Sutherland WJ, Williamson MA (2017) Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12385

  • Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (2004) The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tuscon, www.ser.org

  • Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM (2015) Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verutes GM, Arkema KK, Clarke-Samuels C, Wood SA, Rosenthal A, Rosado S, Canto M, Bood N, Ruckelshaus M (2018) Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and balance s multiple objectives in coastal Belize. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13(3):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainger LA, Mazzotta M (2011) Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ Manag 48:710–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9726-0

    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 69:978–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (ed) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, pp 262–301

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Alicia Lehrer for her support in the research process, to John Kiddon for aid in developing the decision support tool and for comments on the manuscript, and to Walter Berry, James E. Lyons, Tim Gleason, Wayne Munns, two anonymous referees and the editor(s) who reviewed the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This contribution is identified by tracking number ORD-022719 of the Atlantic Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA

    David M. Martin & Marisa Mazzotta

  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL, 32561, USA

    Justin Bousquin

Authors
  1. David M. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marisa Mazzotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin Bousquin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Martin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, D.M., Mazzotta, M. & Bousquin, J. Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning. Environmental Management 62, 608–618 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1038-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1038-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation