Linking ecosystem service supply to stakeholder concerns on both land and sea: An example from Guánica Bay watershed, Puerto Rico

A framework for validating watershed ecosystem service models in the United States using long-term water quality data: Applications with the InVEST Nutrient Delivery (NDR) model in Puerto Rico

Modeling of watershed Ecosystem Services (ES) processes has increased greatly in recent years, potentially improving environmental management and decision-making by describing the value of nature. ES models may be sensitive to different conditions and, therefore, should ideally be validated against observed data for their use as a decision-support instrument. However, outcomes from such ES modeling are barely validated, making it difficult to assess uncertainties associated with the modeling and justify their actual usefulness to develop generalizable management recommendations. This study proposes a framework for the systematic validation of one of such tools, the InVEST Nutrient Delivery Model (NDR) for nutrient retention estimates. The framework is divided into three stages: 1) running the NDR model inputs, processes, and outputs; 2) building a long-term reference dataset from open access water quality observations; and 3) using the reference data for model calibration and validation. We applied this framework to twenty watersheds in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where data availability resembles thar of watersheds across the United States. Long-term water quality data from monitoring stations facilitated model calibration and validation. Our framework provided a reproducible method to linking the vast monitoring network in the U.S. and its territories for evaluating the InVEST's NDR model performance. Beyond the framework development, this study found that the InVEST NDR model explained 62.7 % and 79.3 % of the variance in the total nitrogen and total phosphorus between 2000 and 2022, respectively, supporting the suitability of the model for watershed scale ecosystem services assessment. The findings can also serve as a reference to support the use of InVEST for other locations in the tropics without publically available monitoring data.

A Global Systematic Literature Review of Ecosystem Services in Reef Environments

Ecosystem services (ES) embrace contributions of nature to human livelihood and well-being. Reef environments provide a range of ES with direct and indirect contributions to people. However, the health of reef environments is declining globally due to local and large-scale threats, affecting ES delivery in different ways. Mapping scientific knowledge and identifying research gaps on reefs' ES is critical to guide their management and conservation. We conducted a systematic assessment of peer-reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2022 to build an overview of ES research on reef environments. We analyzed the geographical distribution, reef types, approaches used to assess ES, and the potential drivers of change in ES delivery reported across these studies. Based on 115 articles, our results revealed that coral and oyster reefs are the most studied reef ecosystems. Cultural ES (e.g., subcategories recreation and tourism) was the most studied ES in high-income countries, while regulating and maintenance ES (e.g., subcategory life cycle maintenance) prevailed in low and middle-income countries. Research efforts on reef ES are biased toward the Global North, mainly North America and Oceania. Studies predominantly used observational approaches to assess ES, with a marked increase in the number of studies using statistical modeling during 2021 and 2022. The scale of studies was mostly local and regional, and the studies addressed mainly one or two subcategories of reefs' ES. Overexploitation, reef degradation, and pollution were the most commonly cited drivers affecting the delivery of provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural ES. With increasing threats to reef environments, the growing demand for assessing the contributions to humans provided by reefs will benefit the projections on how these ES will be impacted by anthropogenic pressures. The incorporation of multiple and synergistic ecosystem mechanisms is paramount to providing a comprehensive ES assessment, and improving the understanding of functions, services, and benefits.

The EPA Ecosystem Services Tool Selection Portal

The dynamics of an environmental decision-making context can be complicated. The use of decision support tools can help better facilitate restoring and maintaining ecosystems that provide environmental benefits (ecosystem services) to people. Although an ecosystem services assessment tool is designed for specific purposes, having access to a comprehensive suite of tools offers the user additional insight and resources to help in decision making. A range of approaches exist to connect ecosystem services to a given decision context ranging from less to more complex: using the best professional judgment; applying examples from other efforts; testing individual tool applications; and using a systematic, decision-tree approach to navigate among relevant tools and frameworks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a decision-tree approach for a user to navigate the question of how to choose among a suite of ecosystem services assessment tools for three decision contexts: (1) ecological risk assessments; (2) cleanup of contaminated sites; (3) and generic structured decision-making processes. This tool selection navigator was developed with/for the intended user, including developing crosswalks between tool functionality and the user's language for what they require in a tool. To navigate the tool, the user first chooses one of three decision contexts. Second, the user selects among the different phases of the decision process. Third, the user selects among a few ecosystem-services related tasks relevant to the decision context chosen to identify potential tools. The tool uses simple language to navigate the decision pathways and provides the user with a suite of potential ES resources and tools for their given decision context.

The final ecosystem goods and services Voltron: the power of tools together

Environmental decision-making benefits from considering ecosystem services to ensure that aspects of the environment that people rely upon are fully evaluated. By focusing consideration of ecosystem services on final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), the aspects of the environment directly enjoyed, used, or consumed by humans, these analyses can be more streamlined and effective. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed a set of tools to facilitate this consideration. The central feature of FEGS is that ecosystems are viewed through the diverse ways people directly benefit from them. The National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus provides a framework for describing and identifying FEGS consistently. The standardization made available by NESCS Plus allows other tools and databases to interact using the NESCS Plus architecture and taxonomy, providing diverse insights for decision makers. Here, we examine the synergy of using the following four tools together: (1) the FEGS Scoping Tool; (2) the FEGS Metrics Report; (3) the EnviroAtlas; and (4) the EcoService Models Library. The FEGS Scoping Tool helps users determine what ecosystem services are relevant to a decision by harnessing FEGS understanding to enable communities to identify the relative importance of beneficiaries relevant to a decision and biophysical aspects of the environment of direct relevance to those beneficiaries. The FEGS Metrics Report can guide which metrics to monitor or model to represent those priority services. The EnviroAtlas, a powerful tool containing geospatial data and other resources related to ecosystem services, chemical and non-chemical stressors, and human health, and the EcoService Models Library, a database of ecosystem models, are two tools that support users in mapping and modeling endpoints relevant to priority services. While each of these tools is valuable on its own, together, they provide a powerful approach to easily incorporate and operationalize ecosystem services efforts into different parts of decision-making processes across different types of decisions. We illustrate how these integrated tools can be used together with a hypothetical example of a complex environmental management case study and the combined benefit of using the FEGS tools together.

Identifying and Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Ecosystem restoration may require implementing programs or best management practices (BMPs) in areas that are geographically far from the target ecosystem. Stakeholders in these areas may feel disconnected from the target ecosystem or may not have a clear understanding of local benefits from implemented practices. To achieve widespread participation in restoration efforts, it is important to engage stakeholders located where BMPs need to be implemented to identify and consider their local priorities and impacts. Here, we demonstrate use of a structured decision-making approach to identify ecosystem services associated with BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and connect them with the priorities of stakeholders they benefit. We follow a four-step approach to define the bounds of the decision context, identify ecosystem services and beneficiaries relevant to that decision context, engage stakeholders to understand priorities, and identify potential metrics and indicators. Our approach highlights the utility of different tools, such as ecosystem service classification systems and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool, in engaging stakeholders to identify, communicate, and prioritize ecosystem services. The results demonstrate a method by which to connect large-scale regional restoration efforts, and the managers overseeing such efforts, with the priorities of local communities where programs will be implemented. This work will help Chesapeake Bay restoration partners identify and promote management actions that will provide the most value for communities throughout the watershed, while also benefiting restoration of Chesapeake Bay.

Incorporating adaptation and resilience into an integrated watershed and coral reef management plan

Changing environmental conditions are forcing natural resource managers and communities to adapt their strategies to account for global shifts in precipitation, temperature, sea level and more, all of which are occurring in addition to local human impacts. Adapting to threats from climate change requires a fundamental shift in the practice of natural resource management through the development of forward-looking "climate-smart" goals and strategies. Here we present a proof-of-concept application of a decision-support tool to help design climate-smart management actions for the watershed and coral reef management plan for Guánica Bay watershed in southwest Puerto Rico. We also explore the connection between adaptation planning and coral reef resilience, using a recently developed Puerto Rico-wide reef resilience assessment. In the first phase of the study, we used the publicly available Adaptation Design Tool to draft initial climate-smart versions of twelve proposed management actions. In the second phase, two actions (dirt road management on steep slopes, and coral reef restoration) were further refined through consultations with local experts to make more detailed design adjustments; this included the option to use information from the coral reef resilience assessment to inform design improvements. The first phase resulted in moderately detailed assessments that broadly accounted for anticipated direct and indirect effects of climate change on the planned management actions. The second phase resulted in more site-specific technical assessments and additional important design details. The expert panel charged with discussing climate-smart reef restoration around Guánica used the reef resilience assessment to guide discussion of reef restoration, highlighting the importance of having such information available for adaptation planning. This study demonstrates how climate change impacts can be effectively incorporated into a management plan at the most granular level of planning and how a structured, formalized process can be as valuable as the resulting adaptation information.

Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services

Changing patterns of land use, temperature, and precipitation are expected to impact ecosystem services, including water quality and quantity, buffering of extreme events, soil quality, and biodiversity. Scenario analyses that link such impacts on ecosystem services to human well-being may be valuable in anticipating potential consequences of change that are meaningful to people living in a community. Ecosystem services provide numerous benefits to community well-being, including living standards, health, cultural fulfillment, education, and connection to nature. Yet assessments of impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being have largely focused on human health or monetary benefits (e.g. market values). This study applies a human well-being modelling framework to demonstrate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on multi-faceted components of human well-being through changes in ecosystem services (i.e., ecological benefits functions). The modelling framework quantitatively defines these relationships in a way that can be used to project the influence of ecosystem service flows on indicators of human well-being, alongside social service flows and economic service flows. Land use changes are linked to changing indicators of ecosystem services through the application of ecological production functions. The approach is demonstrated for two future land use scenarios in a Florida watershed, representing different degrees of population growth and environmental resource protection. Increasing rates of land development were almost universally associated with declines in ecosystem services indicators and associated indicators of well-being, as natural ecosystems were replaced by impervious surfaces that depleted the ability of ecosystems to buffer air pollutants, provide habitat for biodiversity, and retain rainwater. Scenarios with increases in indicators of ecosystem services, however, did not necessarily translate into increases in indicators of well-being, due to covarying changes in social and economic services indicators. The approach is broadly transferable to other communities or decision scenarios and serves to illustrate the potential impacts of changing land use on ecosystem services and human well-being.

Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries

In spite of their perceived value, the widespread implementation of ecosystem services assessments has been limited because of perceptions of being too technical, too expensive, or requiring special expertise. For example, federal estuary management programs have widely used ecosystem services concepts to frame management issues and communicate with stakeholders. Yet, indicators assessed, monitored, and reported in estuarine management still have traditionally focused on ecological conditions, with weak connections, if any, to social or economic outcomes. Approaches are needed which expand the range of ecosystem services that can be considered, link ecosystem services explicitly to different stakeholder groups, facilitate effective communication with economists and other social scientists, and expand the array of available valuation techniques. We applied the concept of final ecosystem goods and services to review the broad suite of ecosystem services and their beneficiaries relevant to the management of two federal programs for estuary management, the National Estuary Program (NEP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System provided a structured framework for connecting ecosystem services to their beneficiaries and the environments providing them. Document analysis of management plans assessed the degree to which these programs consider ecosystem services, their beneficiaries, and habitats within the estuarine watershed. The hierarchical list of final ecosystem goods and services generated from document analysis serves as a tool for defining management goals, identifying stakeholders, developing meaningful indicators, and conducting valuation studies in estuarine management planning efforts. Though developed here for estuarine management, the keyword hierarchy and final ecosystem goods and services approach have broad applicability and transferability to other environmental management scenarios.