Elsevier

Ecosystem Services

Volume 26, Part A, August 2017, Pages 170-182
Ecosystem Services

So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Little of the abundant ecosystem services research can directly support decisions.

  • Researchers can make their research more relevant for decision makers.

  • Relevance is increased by the use of benefit relevant indicators (BRIs).

  • Decision makers require methods that balance quality and feasibility.

Abstract

There is growing demand for information regarding the impacts of decisions on ecosystem services and human benefits. Despite the large and growing quantity of published ecosystem services research, there remains a substantial gap between this research and the information required to support decisions. Research often provides models and tools that do not fully link social and ecological systems; are too complex, specialized, and costly to use; and are targeted to outcomes that differ from those needed by decision makers. Decision makers require cost-effective, straightforward, transferable, scalable, meaningful, and defensible methods that can be readily understood. We provide illustrative examples of these gaps between research and practice and describe how researchers can make their work relevant to decision makers by using Benefit Relevant Indicators (BRIs) and choosing models appropriate for particular decision contexts. We use examples primarily from the United States, including cases that illustrate varying degrees of success in closing these gaps. We include a discussion of the challenges and opportunities researchers face in adapting their work to meet the needs of practitioners.

Section snippets

Research that meets practitioner needs

Evaluating the impact of public and private decisions on natural capital and ecosystems is an increasing focus of public and private decision-makers, including government and business leaders (e.g., The Declaration, 2012, WAVES| Wealth Accounting And The Valuation Of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2015, IPBES, 2016). Practitioners in both the public and private sectors are motivated to incorporate the value of ecosystem services in decisions

Strategy 1: Use BRIs to increase research relevance

Ecosystem service research often lacks complete analysis that links policy or management actions to human benefits (Wainger and Mazzotta, 2011). Producing ecosystem services research that meets decision makers’ needs depends on the extent to which the research addresses outcomes that are both valued by people and relevant to organizational decision-making (Boyd et al., 2016). This goal can be achieved by reporting results of ecological or biophysical modeling using benefit-relevant indicators

Strategy 2: Use methods that balance quality and feasibility

Causal chains can be used to show conceptually how management actions lead to changes in ecological condition and to changes in ecosystem services that people value (Fig. 1). These causal chains are the foundation for the quantification of BRIs and associated values, and provide transparency about what steps are necessary. Yet all quantification is not equal. When quantifying changes in BRIs and values to support decisions, researchers must consider the dual goals of quality (i.e., using the

Conclusions

The growing awareness of nature’s social benefits has led to increased demand by decision-makers for decision relevant ecosystem service research. While there has been a concurrent increase in the supply of ecosystem service research published in academic journals and similar outlets, there is a lack of relevant research that practitioners can use to inform decision making in many contexts (Polasky et al., 2015). There is a pressing need for policy and management relevant research on ecosystem

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) with funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875 and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation in support of the National Ecosystem Services Partnership.

We appreciate the assistance of Nichole Basenback on one of the figures and would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice.

References (92)

  • Abt Associates. 2015. Developing Socio-Economic metrics to measure DOI Hurricane Sandy Project and Program Outcomes....
  • P. Adamus et al.

    Manual for the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP). Version 2.0.2

    (2010)
  • A. Ager et al.

    Measuring the effect of fuel treatments on forest carbon using landscape risk analysis

    Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

    (2010)
  • B.P. Allen et al.

    The decision to use benefit transfer or conduct original valuation research for benefit-cost and policy analysis

    Contemp. Econ. Policy

    (2008)
  • E.B. Barbier et al.

    The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services

    Ecol. Monogr.

    (2011)
  • Ian J. Bateman et al.

    Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual

    (2002)
  • I.J. Bateman et al.

    Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe

    Environ. Resource Econ.

    (2011)
  • I.J. Bateman et al.

    Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom

    Science

    (2013)
  • D.M. Bauer et al.

    The economics of rural and agricultural ecosystem services: purism versus practicality

    Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.

    (2013)
  • L. Benda et al.

    Building virtual watersheds: a global opportunity to strengthen resource management and conservation

    Environ. Manage.

    (2016)
  • R.K. Blamey et al.

    Attribute causality in environmental choice modeling

    Environ. Resource Econ.

    (2002)
  • N.E. Bockstael et al.

    On measuring economic values for nature

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2000)
  • M. Borsuk et al.

    Stakeholder values and scientific modeling in the Neuse river watershed

    Group Decis. Negot.

    (2001)
  • J. Boyd et al.

    Landscape indicators of ecosystem service benefits

    Am. J. Agric. Econ.

    (2002)
  • J. Boyd et al.

    Using ecological production theory to define and select environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation

    Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.

    (2013)
  • J. Boyd et al.

    Ecosystem services indicators: improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses

    Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ.

    (2016)
  • Braat, L.C. (ed.) (2015) Mapping of Ecosystems and their Services in the EU And its Member States (MESEU) SYNTHESIS...
  • S.R. Carpenter et al.

    Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment

    PNAS

    (2009)
  • H. Chang

    Comparative streamflow characteristics in urbanizing basins in the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon, USA

    Hydrol. Process.

    (2007)
  • Executive Office of the President of the United States 2015. Memorandum for Executive Departments and Agencies on...
  • Gleason RA, Laubhan MK, Euliss NH Jr (eds). 2008. Ecosystem services derived from wetland conservation practices in the...
  • J.G. Goldstein et al.

    Integrating ecosystem service tradeoffs into land-use decisions

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2012)
  • A.L. Goodkind et al.

    Ecosystem Service Damages from Proposed NorthMet Mine

    (2013)
  • Google Scholar Search. July 18, 2016. (No patents or case law included in...
  • C. Griffiths et al.

    Benefit-cost analysis of regulations affecting surface water quality in the United States

  • A. Guerry et al.

    Natural capital informing decisions: from promise to practice

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2015)
  • Halofsky, J.E., M.K. Creutzburg, and M.A. Hemstrom. 2014. Integrating Social, Economic, and Ecological Values Across...
  • N. Hanley et al.

    Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: is it currently fit for purpose?

    J. Ocean Coastal Econ.

    (2015)
  • D.S. Holland et al.

    Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Based Management: Applications to Marine and Coastal Environments

    (2010)
  • M.D. Hurteau et al.

    Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offsets

    Carbon Balance Manage.

    (2009)
  • “IPBES | Intergovernmental Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services”. Ipbes.net. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 July...
  • R.J. Johnston et al.

    Evaluating the environmental valuation reference inventory (EVRI): results from a survey of actual and potential users

    Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. Newslett.

    (2009)
  • R.J. Johnston et al.

    Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer

    J. Econ. Surv.

    (2010)
  • R.J. Johnston et al.

    Enhancing the content validity of stated preference valuation: the structure and function of ecological indicators

    Land Econ.

    (2012)
  • R.J. Johnston et al.

    Stated preferences for intermediate versus final ecosystem services: Disentangling willingness to pay for omitted ecological outcomes

    Agric. Res. Econ. Rev.

    (2013)
  • R.J. Johnston et al.

    Connecting ecosystem services to land use: implications for valuation and policy

  • Cited by (100)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text